361p. · 2013. 8. 2. · link" (brough); (23) "organizational trends and practices in...

DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 427 847 PS 027 331

AUTHOR Irvin, Judith L., Ed.TITLE What Current Research Says to the Middle Level Practitioner.INSTITUTION National Middle School Association, Columbus, OH.ISBN ISBN-1-56090-120-9PUB DATE 1997-00-00NOTE 361p.

AVAILABLE FROM National Middle School Association, 2600 Corporate ExchangeDrive, Suite 370, Columbus, OH 43231; phone: 800-528-NMSA;fax: 614-895-4750 (NMSA Stock No. 1244).

PUB TYPE Books (010) -- Information Analyses (070)EDRS PRICE MF01/PC15 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS Ability Grouping; *Adolescent Development; Adolescents;

Classroom Techniques; *Curriculum Development; DisciplinePolicy; Educational Environment; Educational Philosophy;Educational Research; Gifted; Higher Education; InclusiveSchools; Interdisciplinary Approach; Intermediate Grades;Junior High Schools; *Middle School Students; Middle SchoolTeachers; *Middle Schools; Motivation; *School Organization;Self Esteem; Student Evaluation; *Teacher Education;Teaching Methods; Team Teaching; Urban Schools

ABSTRACTThis volume provides recent research findings on important

topics related to the still-expanding middle school movement. They aredivided into seven parts, addressing teaching/learning, curriculum, teachereducation, social context, organization, leaderships, and issues and futuredirections. Following an introduction to middle level education research, byIrvin and Hough, the chapters are: (1) "Young Adolescent Development" (Ecclesand Wigfield); (2) "Enhancing Self-Concept/Self-Esteem in Young Adolescents"(Lipka); (3) "Motivation and Middle School Students" (Anderman and Midgley);(4) "The Effects of Interdisciplinary Teaming on Teachers and Students"(Arhar); (5) "Teaching with Time on Your Side: Developing Long-TermRelationships in Schools" (McLaughlin and Doda); (6) "Middle Level Disciplineand Young Adolescents: Making the Connection" (Bennett); (7) "AbilityGrouping: Issues of Equity and Effectiveness" (Mills); (8) "DifferingPerspectives, Common Ground: The Middle School and Gifted EducationRelationship" (Rosselli) ; (9) "Inclusion" (Hines and JohnstOn); (10) "AMultifaceted Approach to Teaching Limited Proficiency Students" (VanNess andPlatt); (11) "Assessment" (Stowell and McDaniel); (12) "Middle LevelCompetitive Sports Programs" (Swaim and McEwin); (13) "Middle LevelCurriculum's Serendipitous History" (Toepfer); (14) "Effects of IntegrativeCurriculum and Instruction" (Vars); (15) "Curriculum for Whom?" (Brazee);(16) "Curriculum for What?`The Search for Curriculum Purposes for MiddleLevel Students" (Beane); (17) "Current Issues and Research in Middle LevelCurriculum: On Conversations, Semantics, and Roots" (Powell and Faircloth);(18) "Middle Level Teacher Preparation and Licensure" (McEwin and Dickinson);(19) "Multicultural Issues in Middle Level Teacher Education" (Hart); (20)

"Improving Urban Schools: Developing the Talents of Students Placed at Risk"(Mac Iver and Plank); (21) "Service Learning and Young AdolescentDevelopment: A Good Fit" (Schine); (22) "Home-School Partnerships: A CriticalLink" (Brough); (23) "Organizational Trends and Practices in Middle LevelSchools" (Valentine and Whitaker); (24) "A Bona Fide Middle School: Programs,

+++++ ED427847 Has Multi-page SFR---Level=1 +++++Policy, Practice, and Grade Span Configurations" (Hough); (25) "Components ofEffective Teams" (Trimble); (26) "Transition into and out of Middle School"(Mizelle and Mullins); (27) "Collaboration and Teacher Empowerment:Implications for School Leaders" (Clark and Clark); (28) "Women in LeadershipRoles" (Clark and Clark); (29) "The Middle Level Principalship" (Valentine,Trimble, and Whitaker); and (30) "Setting a Research Agenda" (Hough andIrvin). Each chapter contains references. (HTH)

********************************************************************************* Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made *

* from the original document. *

********************************************************************************

PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE ANDDISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL HAS

BEEN GRANTED BY

U S DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONOffice of Educational Research and Improvement

EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTER (ERIC)

%This document has been reproduced aseceived from the person or organization

originating it

O Minor changes have been made toimprove reproduction quality.

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)

Points of view or opinions stated in thisdocument do not necessarily representofficial OERI position or policy.

)1.

(

/

What Current Research Saysto the Middle Level Practitioner

3

National Middle School Association is dedicatedto improving the educational experiences of youngadolescents by providing vision, knowledge, and re-sources to all who serve them in order to develophealthy, productive, and ethical citizens.

kilink'R.RI:RR k RP, ItRIZRRI2F21-ii<

RRRkIZKRIt,'RitINRItkR

What Current Research Saysto the Middle Level Practitioner

Judith L. Irvin, Editor

National Middle School AssociationColumbus, OH

National Middle School Association2600 Corporate Exchange Drive, Suite 370

Columbus, Ohio 43231

Telephone (800) 528-NMSA

Copyright@ 1997 by National Middle School Association.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced ortransmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, withoutpermission in writing from the publisher except in the case of brief quota-tions embodied in reviews or articles.

The materials presented herein are the expressions of the authors and do notnecessarily represent the policies of NMSA.

NMSA is a registered servicemark of National Middle School Association.

Printed in the United States of America

Sue Swaim, Executive DirectorJeff Ward, Director of Business ServicesJohn Lounsbury, EditorMary Mitchell, Copy Editor/DesignerMarcia Meade, Publications Sales

ISBN: 1-56090-120-9 NMSA Stock Number: 1244

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication DataWhat current research says to the middle level practitioner/Judith

L. Irvin, editor

p. cm.

Includes bibliographical references.

ISBN 1-56090-120-9 (pbk.)

1. Middle schools--United States. 2. Middle school teaching--United States. 3. Middle school students--United States.4. Middle schools--United States--Curricula. I. Irvin, Judith L.,date. II. National Middle School Association.LB1623.W43 1997 97-26451373.236--dc21 CIP

6 iv

1:PRPRiulkRNIZ.RkkIM10212kkaft.I<RRRRI.k.12,RPRRRPRk. Table of Contents

FOREWORDSue Swaim, Executive Director, NMSA

p. ix

FOREWORDJohn H. Lounsbury, Publications Editor, NMSA

p. xi

PREFACEJudith L..Irvin

p. xiii

INTRODUCTION

1. Research in Middle Level EducationJudith L. Irvin and David Hough 3

IITEACHING/LEARNING

2. Young Adolescent DevelopmentJacquelynne S. Eccles and Allan Wigfield 15

3. Enhancing Self-Concept/Self-Esteem in Young AdolescentsRichard Lipka 31

7

4. Motivation and Middle School StudentsLyn ley Hicks Anderman and Carol Midgley 41

5. The Effects of Interdisciplinary Teaming on Teachers andStudents

Joanne Arhar

6. Teaching with Time on Your Side: Developing Long-TermRelationships in Schools

H. James McLaughlin and Nancy M. Doda

7. Middle Level Discipline and Young Adolescents: Makingthe Connection

Betty J. Bennett

49

57

73

8. Ability Grouping: Issues of Equity and EffectivenessRebecca Mills 87

9. Differing Perspectives, Common Ground: The Middle Schooland Gifted Education Relationship

Hilda C. Rosselli 95

10. InclusionRebecca A. Hines and J. Howard Johnston 109

11. A Multifaceted Approach to Teaching Limited ProficiencyStudents

Jill Van Ness and Elizabeth Platt 121

12. AssessmentLaura P. Stowell and Janet E. McDaniel 137

13. Middle Level Competitive Sports ProgramsJohn H. Swaim and C. Kenneth McEwin 151

HICURRICULUM

14. Middle Level Curriculum's Serendipitous HistoryConrad F. Toepfer 163

8

15. Effects of Integrative Curriculum and InstructionGordon F. Vars 179

16. Curriculum for Whom?Edward Brazee 187

17. Curriculum for What? The Search for Curriculum Purposesfor Middle Level Students

James A. Beane 203

18. Current Issues and Research in Middle Level Curriculum: OnConversations, Semantics, and Roots

Richard R. Powell and C. Victoria Faircloth 209

IVTEACHER EDUCATION

19. Middle Level Teacher Preparation and LicensureC. Kenneth McEwin and Thomas S. Dickinson 223

20. Multicultural Issues in Middle Level Teacher EducationLaurie E. Hart 231

VSOCIAL CONTEXT

21. Improving Urban Schools: Developing the Talents of StudentsPlaced at Risk

Douglas J. Mac Iver and Stephen B. Plank 243

22. Service Learning and Young Adolescent Development:A Good Fit

Joan Schine 257

23. Home-School Partnerships: A Critical LinkJudith Allen Brough 265

VIORGANIZATION

24. Organizational Trends and Practices in Middle Level SchoolsJerry Valentine and Todd Whitaker 277

25. A Bona Fide Middle School: Programs, Policy, Practice, andGrade Span Configurations

David Hough 285

26. Components of Effective TeamsSusan B. Trimble 295

27. Transition Into and Out of Middle SchoolNancy B. Mize Ile and Emmett Mullins 303

VIILEADERSHIP

28. Collaboration and Teacher Empowerment: Implications forSchool Leaders

Sally N. Clark and Donald C. Clark 317

29. Women in Leadership RolesSally N. Clark and Donald C. Clark 327

30. The Middle Level PrincipalshipJerry Valentine, Susan Trimble, and Todd Whitaker 337

VIIIISSUES AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS

31. Setting a Research AgendaDavid Hough and Judith L. Irvin 351

ABOUT THE AUTHORSp. 357

1 0 vin

knilleRRRRRRRURRRRARRRRR:RRRARRRRRRRRRRRR

Sue Swaim

Foreword

Education is at an important crossroad; and middle level educationin particular is receiving new scrutiny. What Current Research Saysto the Middle Level Practitioner, therefore, is a most timely publi-

cation. National Middle School Association is proud to be able to facilitatethe preparation and publishing of this important volume. It is another dem-onstration of the association's commitment to the importance of middlelevel research and its impact on the implementation of high performance,developmentally responsive middle level schools. NMSA's other researchinitiatives and resources include:

the ongoing work of NMSA's Research Committee,the expansion and publication of Research in Middle Level Educa-tion Quarterly, a journal dedicated to sharing quality researchconcerning young adolescents and their schooling,the publication and distribution, via the internet and fax-on-de-mand, of Research Summaries that synthesize research and answerquestions most frequently raised about middle level schools,the publication and dissemination of the Middle Level ResearchAgenda that was developed by a blue ribbon task force of research-ers and middle level practitioners to help encourage and facilitatethe continued focus on quality middle level research.

Collectively, these initiatives are building a body of knowledge which iseasily accessible to middle level practitioners. It is important that we com-bine what we are learning through relevant research with the cumulativeexperiences of thousands of middle level educators so that the critical workof reforming and improving middle level education will continue to moveforward.

ix 11

I encourage you to read this publication very carefully and share itwith others, including board members and citizens generally. It touches ona wide variety of important middle level topics and is written in a clearvoice directed to middle level practitioners. Now is the time to rise to thechallenge of implementing middle level schools that expect high academicachievement from all students through the implementation of developmen-tally responsive practices. The young adolescents with whom we work andlive on a daily basis deserve our best efforts if each is to have the chance tobecome all he or she can and should be.

The importance of achieving developmentally responsivemiddle level schools cannot be overemphasized. The na-ture of the educational programs young adolescents ex-perience during this formative period of life will, in large

measure, determine the future for all of us.This We Believe, 1995.

12

:PRIZRRIaR'RKRRRRHK.RRRRIRfat.

LRRIZRRIZR1,1,

John H. Lounsbury

Foreword

The middle school movement is an educational success story unpar-alleled in our history. In little over three decades the face of Ameri-can education has been remade; the intermediate level of education

has been given a long overdue identity and has, in fact, been recognized asthe level leading in instituting significant educational reform.

To maintain the momentum, however, the clear light of solid researchis needed. As a presumably new idea, the middle school has faced hardquestions, ones neither the elementary school nor the high school has hadto answer. Because the middle school advocacy included practices and pro-grams that were not a part of established school practices, parents and boardmembers have been skeptical and wanted evidence. Citizens demandedresearch data to justify implementation of middle school practices, althoughno research studies could be cited to justify maintaining the status quo.Now, however, there are data to give credibility to advocated middle levelpractices.

For many years, there was little relevant research available, and thestudies that existed were scattered. Middle school advocates were certainabout the validity of their educational philosophy and sufficiently commit-ted to implement their beliefs on faith. The positive responses of studentsgave them further assurance, but subjective judgments about "doing theright thing for kids" failed to satisfy critics and skeptics. Fortunately, researchstudies that focus on young adolescents and middle school practices havebegun to accumulate, with prospects for more in the immediate future. Whilethe definitive, no qualification results that some would like are not available,a body of solid research data to undergird middle school practices is nowpresent. In education it is never possible to control sufficiently all the vari-

xi 13

ables as can be done in a scientific laboratory. However, about the weightof evidence supporting middle school practices there can be little doubt.

This volume is a testament to that fact, and its publication is a matterof real importance to the still-expanding middle school movement. Neverbefore has there been assembled and presented in clear, understandableterms so much research data on so many facets of middle level education.In the 31 chapters, topics ranging from young adolescent development, toteaming, to inclusion, to grouping, to urban schools, to organizational is-sues are examined.

What Current Research Says to the Middle Level Practitioner is acarefully crafted melding of research findings and understandable prose.Judith Irvin and the forty competent authors/researchers are to be com-mended for providing this much-needed volume. Filling admirably the gapthat has existed in middle level professional literature, this resource de-serves to be studied, quoted, referred to, and otherwise put to use in thecontinuing campaign to improve the educational experience of young ado-lescents.

1 4

xii

ItkRRE2khl:kRERkRRR1212RRRR12.1:

RRIZIaRk R.RRRRI<It.RR

Judith L. Irvin

Preface

What Research Says to the Middle Level Practitioner, released byNMSA in 1986, filled a critical need. Since that time, consider-able activity in the field of middle level research has occurred.

Research in Middle Level Education Quarterly was established, and 'qual-ity research concerning young adolescents and their schooling can be foundin a variety of other journals both inside and outside of education. AlthoughRMLEQ makes a deliberate effort to report implications of research to thefield of practice, the reality is that teachers, administrators, school districtpersonnel, school board members, and other practitioners have neither thetime nor the inclination to locate and pour through research articles ontopics of interest in middle level education. NMSA attempts to fill the gapbetween research and practice by producing a series of Research Summa-ries that synthesize research and answer questions most frequently raisedby middle level practitioners.

This all new volume, What Current Research Says to the Middle LevelPractitioner, is a result of discussions between the Research Committeeand the Publications Committee of NMSA, both of which recognized theneed to provide a ready source of the most recent research findings, in areadable fashion, on important topics. The table of contents was shaped bythe Research Committee and members of the American EducationalResearch Association's (AERA) Special Interest Group in Middle LevelEducation; then, highly knowledgeable researchers in the field were askedto submit chapters. This volume represents the collaborative efforts of 40separate authors with guidance from NMSA's Research Committee mem-bers Joanne Arhar, Ronald Klemp, Laurie Hart, Rebecca Mills, DavidHough, Nancy Mizelle, and Jill Van Ness. It was, indeed, a pleasure for meto work with this entire group of dedicated scholars.

kikRIZRIkkARRIklatiRER.124,FMR12,kRi fiRR,R1(RRKRI 10-27RF§k

IMRR.13.13AL,,, ARIZRfefkltROZRRIMRAIIRRIMINRR

Irvin

Hough

Introduction

Judith L. IrvinFlorida State UniversityTallahassee, Florida

David HoughSouthwest MissouriState UniversitySpringfield, Missouri

16

Judith L. Irvin and David Hough

Research in Middle Level Education

The success of middle level education over the past two decades ismore the result of courageous efforts by adventuresome educatorsthan reliance on a research base supporting such signature prac-

tices as interdisciplinary team organization, small group guidance, or anexploratory curriculum. In fact, some middle level practitioners haveshunned research as being impractical, difficult to understand, and some-what intimidating. The 1990s, however, have brought new sophisticationto middle level education among school board members and site-baseddecision makers. These policy makers in the educational process now de-mand to consider research findings that may make an impact on decisionsmade in individual schools or districts. Research in middle level educationseems to be coming of age.

Much of the educational restructuring rhetoric seems to be focused,in general, on practices such as team organization, interdisciplinary instruc-tion, and an advisory role for teachers practices first designed for andpracticed in middle level schools. In the next decade, it is already clear thateducators are sure to witness in elementary and high schools the imple-mentation of practices that have been traditionally identified as middle schoolpractices. More than ever, then, research supporting or raising questionsabout the effectiveness of these practices is imperative.

Research Methodologies Li

Reluctant research consumers cite their lack of statistical sophistication asa reason not to use the results of systematic study in their daily decision

3

WHAT CURRENT RESEARCH SAYS

making. Generally, they associate numbers, formulas, and convoluted setsof findings with articles that rarely discuss the implications of such find-ings. Until recently, reluctant consumers of research may have been justi-fied in their hesitancy.

New research methodologies have liberated educators from these in-timidations. We will briefly describe five methodologies most commonlyused to study education that are extremely useful to middle level practitio-ners: surveys, shadow studies, quantitative, qualitative, and action research.Each methodology differs in its observational and analytical techniques,the role of the researcher, and the emphasis on the context of the phenom-enon studied. We conclude this chapter by discussing the identity of middlelevel education research and efforts to disseminate research to the field ofpractice.

Li Survey researchThe most useful aspect of survey research is the ability to gain in-

sights and information from people covering vast distances in a reasonableamount of time. Samples are generally large, yet information about contextis limited. Survey research is particularly useful to track trends, practices,and issues over time and across numerous sites.

At least four large survey efforts have provided useful descriptive dataaddressing the degree to which middle school programs and practices areimplemented across the country. Schools in the Middle: Status and Progress(Alexander & McEwin, 1989) compares and contrasts the results betweena 1968 and 1988 survey of trends in grade configuration, enrollment num-bers, reasons for establishing a middle school, subject offerings, evalua-tions, and attitudes towards middle schools. In Education in the MiddleGrades: National Practices and Trends, Epstein & Mac Iver (1990) sur-veyed 2400 middle level schools with a response rate of 73%. This studyaddressed the practices surveyed in the Alexander and McEwin survey andasked respondents to project possible future practices.

The most recent survey and the most comprehensive provided statusdata derived from a 1993 random sample of 1,798 middle level schoolstogether with comparisons from the 1968 and 1988 surveys cited above.America's Middle Schools: Practices and ProgressA 25Year Perspective(McEwin, Dickinson, & Jenkins, 1996) supplies detailed information onnearly every aspect of middle level schooling. One hundred and twelvetables and figures supplement the narrative. Especially valuable is the abil-ity to see the shifts that have occurred since the initial Alexander survey of1968 and the subsequent 1988 study.

18 4

RESEARCH IN MIDDLE LEVEL EDUCATION

Another important large scale survey effort was conducted by theNational Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP) through theirpublication of three studies: The Junior High Principalship (Rock &Hemphill, 1966), The Middle Level Principalship: A Survey of Middle LevelPrincipals and Programs (Valentine, Clark, Nickerson, & Keefe, 1981),and Leadership in Middle Level Education: A National Survey of MiddleLevel Leaders and Schools (Valentine, Clark, Irvin, Melton, & Keefe, 1993).These large-scale surveys obtained information about practices of princi-pals and assistant principals and the degree of implementation of middleschool programs and practices. The latest two studies included a secondvolume which consisted of a multiple cross-site analysis of certain pro-grams and practices. Teams of researchers actually visited selected sites toverify and extend information learned through the survey (Keefe, Clark,Nickerson, & Valentine, 1983; Keefe, Valentine, Clark, & Irvin, 1994). Takentogether, these surveys (spanning 27 years from 1966 to 1993) have beenuseful in tracking middle level education to understand better the level ofimplementation of signature practices.

[a Shadow studiesFive shadow studies of middle level grades have been conducted on a

national level. They have provided a realistic look at what students experi-ence in school: The Junior High School We Saw: One Day in the EighthGrade (Lounsbury & Marani, 1964); The Middle School in Profile: A Dayin the Seventh Grade (Lounsbury, Marani, & Compton, 1980); How Faresthe Ninth Grade? (Lounsbury & Johnston, 1985); Life in the Three SixthGrades (Lounsbury & Johnston, 1988); and Inside Grade Eight: From Apa-thy to Excitement (Lounsbury & Clark, 1990). By following or "shadow-ing" students throughout a particular school day, researchers have helpedpractitioners understand the unique experiences of young adolescents ateach middle level grade and from the standpoint of the consumer. Shadowstudies provide a revealing picture of life in the schools and classroomsthat serve young adolescent students.

LI Quantitative researchNumbers and formulas are trademarks of quantitative research meth-

odologies. Comparison between treatment and control groups and signifi-cance of results are important elements. One of the difficulties with quanti-tative research is that to understand the conclusions drawn, one must un-derstand each of the variables and how it was measured as well as thestatistical procedures used to analyze the data in this deductive approach.

5

19


LI Qualitative researchInterviews, observations, and document analysis are the major forms

of data collection in this research methodology. Samples are generally small,but context becomes extremely important. Volumes of data are collected,analyzed, and synthesized because qualitative researchers usually spendlong periods of time "in the field." Themes often emerge inductively andare often used to draw conclusions. Just as quantitative research has checksfor validity and rigor, qualitative methodology establishes validity and rigorthrough such techniques as member checks (returning to the source of in-formation for accuracy) and triangulation (validating information from morethan one source). Despite the difficulty of drawing generalizations fromqualitative research, this methodology is popular and has facilitated thestudy of many of the phenomena in middle level schools that are difficultto quantify.

lj Action researchCollaboration among university, school faculty, and students make

this type of research meaningful, context driven, and of specific use tolocal sites. Qualitative, quantitative, or a combination of the two method-ologies can be used in action research which is most often used to studysuch issues as curricular innovations, instructional strategies, or studentattitudes peculiar to one situation in time. Results are not necessarily in-tended to be generalized to other settings.

All of these research techniques have validity and rigor built into theirmethodologies. All have been used (and sometimes misused) by research-ers and practitioners, and all have their place in adding pieces to the middlelevel education puzzle. Occasionally, we are asked the question "whichstudy proves what we do in middle school is right for young adolescents?"No one study and no one methodology answers that complex question.Building a research agenda is the first step toward asking the "right ques-tions" so that bona fide answers might be found.

Identity of Middle Level Research ID

In a comprehensive review of the research literature, Hough (1989, 1991)found pre-1980 middle level education research "weak in design and meth-odologically flawed. During the 1980s, however, [he found] a growing levelof sophistication in the design and conduct of many studies [which] pro-duced a higher quality of research" (p. 8). Middle level research of the

2 o

RESEARCH EV MIDDLE LEVEL EDUCATION

1990s is of higher quality than in the 1970s or 1980s, and there is consider-ably more of it.

Identity may be a key factor in improving both the quality and theamount of research pertinent to middle level education. A Delphi Studyconducted by the National Middle School Association (Jenkins & Jenkins,1991) revealed that achieving legitimacy for the middle school was theleading issue among its members. Educators voiced an imperative for middlelevel education to be recognized as a distinctly separate entity, not an addi-tion to either elementary or high school education.

While middle level education has a long legacy, its forming identity,especially to those "outside" the movement, is fairly new. Middle schoolidentity can be understood best, perhaps, through a series of publicationsbeginning with Donald Eichhorn's The Middle School (1966), after whicha flurry of middle school activity ensued. This We Believe (1982), the firstofficial position statement of the National Middle School Association, andThisWe Believe: Developmentally Responsive Middle Level Schools (1995),the newer NMSA position paper, both have had wide distribution and in-fluence. Turning Points: Preparing American Youth for the 21st Century(Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development, 1989) brought nationalattention to the middle level of education and endorsed the premises ofearlier efforts and publications. These publications and, of course, the writ-ing and implementing of three decades of middle level educators, and theefforts of the National Middle School Association have provided a model,an identity, that makes this level of education distinct from all others.

The time has finally come for researchers to examine closely the keymiddle school issues. It took three decades for these issues to emerge andbe clearly defined, regardless of methodology.

Johnston (1984) emphasized the importance of "looking outsidemiddle school research per se to identify information that is useful in mak-ing professional decisions that enhance the educational program for youngadolescents" (p. 135). Research in middle level education has become asub-specialty field in the broader context of educational research. In a chapteron middle level research, Strahan (1992) stated: "if we think of educationas a field of study, we can begin to think of the various formal disciplinesand other areas of inquiry as strands that pass through the field. We canbegin to think of the middle level as a major 'zone' of the field that encom-passes these areas of inquiry" (p. 382).

Two kinds of questions beg to be answered: (1) What significance dobroad areas such as grouping practices, integrated curriculum, and literacylearning have for middle level education? (2) What is the evidence support-

7

21


ing the identifying practices found to be unique in the middle level schoolsuch as interdisciplinary team organization, small group guidance, and anemphasis on exploratory experiences? A research agenda includes lines ofinquiry with collections of studies that point to a common solution or needfor change. For example, hundreds of studies pointing to the perils of abil-ity grouping (see e.g., Oakes, 1985) have prompted school personnel tobegin to change these practices in the last five years. Hundreds of studieson cooperative learning have given confidence to many educators that thisinstructional strategy is supported by a substantial research base.

ID Efforts to Disseminate Research Findings

In his chapter in Perspectives: Middle School Education 1964-1984,Johnston (1984) presented a synopsis of research in middle level educationin nine clusters of studies. The "What Research Says to the Middle LevelPractitioner" department in Middle School Journal has been helpful in keep-ing practitioners attentive to new research developments. What ResearchSays to the Middle Level Practitioner (Johnston & Markle, 1986) was es-sentially a collection of these articles. The all-new chapters for this volumewere solicited from the most knowledgeable researchers in the field aroundtopics of importance to middle level practitioners.

The Research Committee of the National Middle School Associationhas diligently disseminated research findings to its membership throughthe publication of 43 issues of Research in Middle Level Education Quar-terly (first called The Research Annual and then Research in Middle LevelEducation) and through sponsored Research Symposia at each NMSA an-nual conference. Research in Middle Level Education Quarterly is cur-rently recognized by the Special Interest Group in Middle Level Educationof the American Educational Research Association (AERA) as its preferredoutlet for publication of middle level education research.

The National Middle School Association has engaged in other effortsto disseminate research findings to practitioners including a growing num-ber of sessions at conferences earmarked as research-based strands and thewide distribution of "Research Summaries" addressing the most frequentlyasked questions by practitioners. (These summaries are available by call-ing 1-800-528-NMSA). In addition, a Research Agenda Task Force hasmet and collaborated with AERA to articulate a Research Agenda for middlelevel education that can guide development and funding efforts through inthe next decade.

822


Setting a research agenda for middle level education is not a simpletask. Schooling in general is complex, and middle level education researchhas traditionally had to create its own identity. In the now limited wakinghours before the new century arrives, we have the opportunity to createenvironments that respond to the needs of young adolescents and engagethem actively in learning. We have the option of grouping students in waysthat are fair to all. We have the understanding needed to develop a curricu-lum that is fully integrated and relevant to students. We have adequate rea-sons for seeking legitimacy for education's middle level so that the propereducation and certification of teachers for young adolescent students isensured. We have the skills needed to establish a solid research base forthis distinct level of education. In a review of middle level research, VanZandt and Totten (1995) stated that "the pursuit of middle level reformsthat enhance students' educational experiences and opportunities is wellunderway. While research prior to 1990 focused on how to meet studentneeds, the current decade is witnessing a shift toward the importance ofdocumenting the effectiveness of these programs" (p. 20). Setting and imple-menting a research agenda for middle level education is imperative, andfroin all appearances it is an idea whose time has come. ED

ReferencesAlexander, W., & McEwin, K. (1989). Schools in the middle: Status and.

progress. Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association.

Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development. (1989). Turning points: Pre-

paring American youth for the 21 st century. New York: Carnegie Corporation.

Eichhorn, D. H. (1966). The middle school. New York: Center for AppliedResearch.

Epstein, J. L., & Mac Iver, D. J. (1990). Education in the middle grades:National practices and trends. Columbus, OH: National Middle School Associa-tion.

Hough, D. L. (1989). Middle level education in California: A survey of pro-

grams and organization. Riverside, CA: University of California, EducationalResearch Cooperative.

Hough, D. L. (1991). Setting a research agenda for middle level education.Crossroads: The California Journal of Middle Grades Research, 1 (1), 4-11.

Jenkins, D., & Jenkins, K. (1991). The NMSA Delphi report. Middle School

Journal, 22 (4), 23-36.

Johnston, J. H. (1984). A synthesis of research findings on middle level edu-

cation. In J. Lounsbury (Ed.), Perspectives: Middle school education 1964-1984(pp. 135-156). Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association.

9

2 3


Johnston, J. H., & Markle, G. C. (1986). What research says to the middlelevel practitioner. Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association.

Keefe, J. W., Clark, D. C., Nickerson, N. C., & Valentine, J. (1983). Theeffective middle level principal. Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary

School Principals.

Keefe, J. W., Valentine, J., Clark, D. C., & Irvin, J. L. (1994). Leadership in

middle level education: Volume II: Leadership in successfully restructuring middle

level schools. Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals.

Lounsbury, J. H., & Clark, D. C. (1990). Inside grade eight: From apathy to

excitement. Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals.

Lounsbury, J. H., & Johnston, J. H. (1985). How fares the ninth grade? Reston,

VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals.

Lounsbury, J. H., & Johnston, J. H. (1988). Life in the three sixth grades.Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals.

Lounsbury, J. H., & Marani, J. (1964). The junior high school we saw: One

day in the eighth grade. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curricu-

lum Development.

Lounsbury, J. H., Marani, J., & Compton, M. (1980). The middle school in

profile: A day in the seventh grade. Columbus, OH: National Middle School Asso-

ciation.

McEwin, C. K., Dickinson, T. S., & Jenkins, D. M. (1996). America' s middle

Schools: Practices and progressA 25 year perspective. Columbus, OH: NationalMiddle School Association.

National Middle School Association. (1982). This we believe. Columbus,OH: Author.

National Middle School Association. (1995). This we believe: Developmen-

tally responsive middle level schools. Columbus, OH: Author.

Oakes, J. (1985). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality. NewHaven, CT: Yale University Press.

Rock, D.A., & Hemphill, J.K. (1966). The junior high-school principalship.

Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals.

Strahan, D. B. (1992). Turning points and beyond: Coming of age in middle

level research. In J. L. Irvin (Ed.), Transforming middle level education: Perspec-

tives and possibilities (pp. 381-399). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Valentine, J. W. , Clark, D. C., Nickerson, N. C., & Keefe, J. W. (1981). The

middle level principalship: A survey of middle level principals and programs (Vol.

I). Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals.

2 410


Valentine, J. W., Clark, D. C., Irvin, J. L., Keefe, J. W., & Melton, G. (1993).

Leadership in middle level education: Volume I: A national survey of middle level

leaders and schools. Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Prin-

cipals.Van Zandt, L. M., & Totten, S. (1995). The current status of middle level

education research: A critical review. Research in Middle Level Education, 18 (3),

1-26.

2 c11

tRRRR RRgrvv).-R11

-RRRRRRRRRRRkRaRRRIMIIR

Teaching and LearningEccles

Wigfield

Lipka

Anderman

Midgley

Arhar

McLaughlin

Doda

Bennett

Mills

Jacquelynne S. EcclesUniversity of Michigan,Ann Arbor, Michigan

Allan E WigfieldUniversity of Maryland,Baltimore, Maryland

Richard P LipkaPittsburg State UniversityPittsburg, Kansas

Lynley Hicks AndermanUniveristy of MissouriKansas City, Missouri

Carol MidgleyUniversity of MichiganAnn Arbor; Michigan

Joanne M. ArharKent State UniversityKent, Ohio

H. James McLaughlinUniversity of GeorgiaAthens, Georgia

Nancy DodaNational-Louis UniversityWashington, D.C.

Betty J. BennettFlorida State UniversityTallahassee, Florida

Rebecca MillsUniversity of NevadaLas Vegas, Nevada

2 6

RRO.ROORRRRRRRREURRNRRRRR e R

RRR,WWR

R WWMRR R RRR mmm 4=ARR

RR W WORRRRR

Rosselli

Hines

Johnston

VanNess

Platt

McDaniel

Stowell

Swaim

McEwin

2 ?

Hilda C. RosselliUniversity of South FloridaTampa, Florida

Rebecca A. HinesSoutheast MissouriState UniversityCape Girardeau, Missouri

J. Howard JohnstonUniversity of South FloridaTampa, Florida

Jill VanNessFlorida State UniversityTallahassee, Florida

Elizabeth PlattFlorida State UniversityTallahassee, Florida

Janet E. McDanielCalifornia State UniversitySan Marcos, California

Laura P. StowellCalifornia State UniversitySan Marcos, California

John H. SwaimOtterbein CollegeWesterfield, Ohio

C. Kenneth McEwinAppalachian State UniversityBoone, North Carolina

Jacquelynne S. Eccles and Allan Wigfield

Young Adolescent Development

Early adolescence is a time of great change, the biological changesassociated with puberty, the social/educational changes associatedwith the transitions from elementary to secondary school, the so-

cial and psychological changes associated with the emergence of sexualityto name a few. In fact, very few developmental periods are characterized byas many changes in as many areas. With rapid change comes a heightenedpotential for both positive and negative outcomes. Although most individu-als pass through this developmental period without excessively high levelsof "storm and stress," a substantial number of individuals experience diffi-culty. For example, between 15 and 30 percent (depending on ethnic group)drop out of school before completing high school; further, adolescents as agroup have the highest arrest rate of any age group; and increasing num-bers of adolescents consume alcohol and other drugs on regular basis (Of-fice of Educational Research and Improvement, 1988). Many of these prob-lems begin during the young adolescent years (Carnegie Council on Ado-lescent Development, 1989). In addition, because individuals make manychoices and engage in a variety of behaviors during this period that caninfluence the rest of their lives, it is critical that educators understand whatfactors influence whether young people stay on a healthy, productive path-way or move onto a problematic, and potentially destructive pathway asthey pass through this important developmental period. In this chapter, wesummarize the major changes and, given that most of our own theoreticaland empirical work has focused on young adolescents' achievement moti-vation and school performance (e.g., Eccles, Midgley, Buchanan, Wigfield,Reuman & Mac Iver, 1993; Wigfield & Eccles, 1992; Wigfield, Eccles,

15

2 8


Mac Iver, Reuman, & Midgley, 1991), we emphasize this aspect of devel-opment and its relation to changes in school experiences. We begin with aconsideration of the biological changes that occur during early adolescence.

CI Biological changes associated with pubertyA complete review of the biological changes associated with puberty

is beyond the scope of this chapter (see Adams, Montemayor, & Gullotta,1989; Brooks-Gunn & Reiter, 1990; Buchanan, Eccles, & Becker, 1992).Briefly, as a result of the activation of the hormones controlling these physi-cal developments, most children undergo a growth spurt, develop primaryand secondary sex characteristics, become fertile, and experience increasedsexual libido during early adolescence. Because girls begin to experiencethese pubertal changes approximately 18 months younger than boys, girlsand boys of the same chronological age are likely to be at quite differentpoints in physical and social development during early adolescence, a factthat both complicates social interactions in middle grades classrooms andcreates different psychological dilemmas for early maturing girls versusboys. While early maturation tends to be advantageous for boys, particu-larly with respect to their participation in sports activities and social stand-ing in school, early maturation can be problematic for girls because theyare the first individuals in their cohort to begin changing and because thekinds of physical changes girls experience (such as getting fatter) are nothighly valued among many white American groups who value the slim,androgynous female body characteristic of white fashion models (seePetersen, 1998; Simmons & Blyth, 1987). In fact, early maturing whitefemales have the lowest self-esteem and the most difficulty adjusting toschool transitions, particularly the transition from elementary to junior highschool (e.g., Eccles, Lord, Roeser, Barber, Jozefowicz, 1996; Simmons &Blyth, 1979). African American females do not evidence this same patternperhaps because the African American culture places higher value on thesecondary sex characteristics associated with female maturation.

Magnusson and Stattin traced the long-term consequences of earlymaturation in females (Magnusson, 1988; Stattin & Magnusson, 1990).The early maturing girls in these studies obtained less education and mar-ried earlier than their later maturing peers despite the lack of any differ-ences in achievement levels prior to the onset of puberty. These researchersattributed this difference to the fact that the early maturing females weremore likely to join older peer groups and to begin dating older males; inturn, the early maturing girls in these peer groups were more likely to dropout of school and get married, perhaps because school achievement was

2 9 16

YOUNG ADOLESCENT DEVELOPMENT

not valued by their peer social network while early entry into the job mar-ket and early marriage were valued.

Recently, researchers have studied exactly how the hormonal changesoccurring during early adolescence (ages 9-13) relate to changes in children'sbehavior (e.g., see Buchanan et al., 1992; Petersen & Taylor, 1980). Someevidence exists for direct effects of hormones on behaviors such as aggres-sion, sexuality and mood swings (e.g., Buchanan et al., 1992; Olweus,Mattssoon, Schalling, & Low, 1988; Susman, Inoff-Germain, Nottelmann,Loriaux, Cutler, & Chrousos, 1987). Hormones can also affect behaviorindirectly through their impact on the emergence of secondary sex charac-teristics, which, in turn, can influence social experiences and psychologi-cal well-being. For example, when breast development is associated withincreases in girls' body image, it is also related to better psychologicaladjustment, more positive peer relations, and better school achievement(Brooks-Gunn & Warren, 1988).

In addition to physical changes, young adolescents experience majorschool transitions and important social changes as well. Several research-ers (e.g., Simmons & Blyth, 1987) have argued that it is the combination ofso many changes occurring simultaneously during early adolescence thatis problematic for so many young adolescents. Individuals who must copewith several stressful changes (such as those associated with pubertal change,school transitions, and the social-role changes associated with dating) atthe same time are at risk for developmental problems such as lowered self-esteem and early sexual activity. Again, because girls enter puberty earlierthan boys, they are more likely than boys to be coping with pubertal changesat the same time they make the middle grades school transition and thus aremore likely to face multiple transitions simultaneously.

This perspective raises the question of when students should makethe transition from elementary to secondary school. Given the difficultiesof coping with several transitions at once, some researchers have arguedthat middle grades school should begin earlier, so that all students make theschool transition before they enter puberty. Others have argued that a K-8organizational structure may be most beneficial to young adolescents. Therecent movement to make middle grades schools more like elementaryschools and less like traditional junior high schools also reflects concernover the variety of changes young adolescents must face.

Changes in cognitionThe most important cognitive changes during this period relate to the

increasing ability of children to think abstractly, consider the hypothetical17

3 0


as well as the'real, engage in more sophisticated and elaborate informationprocessing strategies, consider multiple dimensions of a problem at once,and reflect on oneself and on complicated problems (see Keating, 1990).Indeed, such abstract and hypothetical thinking is the hallmark of Piaget'sformal operations stage assumed to begin during early adolescence (e.g.,Piaget & Inhelder, 1973). Although there is still considerable debate aboutwhen exactly these kinds of cognitive processes emerge and whether theiremergence reflects global stage-like changes in cognitive skills as describedby Piaget, most theorists do agree that these kinds of thought processes aremore characteristic of adolescents' cognition than of younger children'scognition.

Many cognitive theorists have also assessed how more specific infor-mation processing skills, cognitive learning strategies, and metacognitiveskills change (e.g., Bjorklund, 1989; Siegler, 1986). A steady increase oc-curs in children's information processing skills and learning strategies, intheir knowledge of a variety of different topics and subject areas, their abil-ity to apply their knowledge to new learning situations, and in their aware-ness of their strengths and weaknesses as learners. Although one wouldthink that these types of cognitive changes ought to allow young adoles-cents to be more efficient, sophisticated learners, ready to cope with rela-tively advanced topics in many different subject areas, Keating (1990) ar-gued that these changes do not necessarily make them better thinkers, par-ticularly during the period of early adolescence. They need at lot of experi-ence exercising these skills before they can use the skills efficiently.

Researchers have also suggested that these kinds of cognitive changescould affect how children and young adolescents regulate their behavior ineducational settings (e.g., Zimmerman, 1989). For example, as children'scognitive skills increase and they have more experience in educational set-tings, they should be able to regulate their learning better and so do morecomplicated and elaborate achievement tasks.

Along with the implications for learning, these kinds of cognitivechanges can also affect an individual's self-concept, thoughts about thefuture, and understanding of others. Theorists from Erikson (1963) to Haner(1990) have suggested that the young adolescent years are a time of changein a young person's self-concept as young people consider what possibili-ties are available to them and try to come to a deeper understanding ofthemselves. These sorts of self-reflections require the kinds of higher-or-der cognitive processes just discussed. During early adolescence and ado-lescence individuals also become much more interested in understandingothers' internal psychological characteristics, and friendships become based

18

3 1


more on perceived similarity in these characteristics (see Selman, 1980).Again, these sorts of changes in person perception reflect the broaderchanges in cognition that occur at this time.

Before leaving this topic, it is important to acknowledge the continu-ing debate about how much schooling can facilitate these kinds of cogni-tive changes. In discussing secondary schools' effects on educational at-tainment, Entwisle (1990) concluded that the effects of school quality onachievement test gains in high school are relatively small. Keating (1990)also discussed how the increase in knowledge and cognitive skills slowsduring adolescence. However, he also argued that there are a number offactors in the school setting that can influence cognitive development andsuccess in school such as: the amount of meaningful material introduced,how the training of thinking skills is (or isn't) embedded in detailed con-tent knowledge, and the ways in which teachers foster (or don't foster)critical thinking skills. In addition, these changes in cognitive skills and theability to regulate behavior are often used as a rationale for special middleschools in which students purportedly learn more challenging material.

Friendships and peer groupsProbably the most controversial changes during early adolescence

involve the increase in peer focus and involvement in peer-related social,sports, and other extracurricular activities. Many young adolescents attachgreat importance to these types of activities substantially more impor-tance than they attach to academic activities (Wigfield et al., 1991). In-deed, often to the chagrin of parents and teachers, activities with peers,peer acceptance, and appearance can take precedence over school activi-ties, particularly during early adolescence. Further, young adolescents' con-fidence in their physical appearance and social acceptance is often a moreimportant predictor of self-esteem than confidence in their cognitive/aca-demic competence (Harter, 1990).

In part because of the importance of social acceptance during earlyadolescence, friendship networks during this period often are organizedinto relatively rigid cliques that differ in social status within the schoolsetting (see Brown, 1990). The existence of these cliques seems to reflectyoung adolescents' need to establish a sense of identity; belonging to agroup is one way to answer the "Who am I?" question.

Also, in part because of the importance of social acceptance, children'sconformity to their peers peaks during early adolescence (Brown, 1990).Much has been written about how this peer conformity can create manyproblems for young adolescents, and about how "good" children often are

19

2 2


corrupted by the negative influences of peers, particularly by adolescentgangs and indeed gangs do pose serious social problems in many cities.However, although pressure from peers to engage in misconduct does in-crease during early adolescence (see Brown, 1990), most researchers donot accept the simplistic view that peer groups are mostly a bad influenceduring early adolescence. More often than not young adolescents tend toagree more with their parents' views on "major" issues such as morality,the importance of education, politics, and religion. Peers have more influ-ence on things such as dress and clothing styles, music, and activity choice.In addition, young adolescents usually seek out similar peers; this meansthat those involved in sports will have other athletes as friends; those seri-ous about school will seek those kinds of friends. Consequently, youngadolescents also tend to hang around with peers who hold similar views astheir parents on the major issues listed above. Brown (1990) concludedthat it is poor parenting that usually leads children to get in with a "bad"peer group, rather than the peer group pulling a "good" child into difficul-ties. In most cases, the peer group acts more to reinforce existing strengthsand weakness than to change young adolescents' characteristics.

Finally, the quality of children's friendships also undergoes some im-portant changes during adolescence (see Berndt & Perry, 1990). As sug-gested by Sullivan (1953), young adolescents' friendships are more focusedon fulfilling intimacy needs than younger children's friendship. This is par-ticularly true for girls.

CI Changes in family relationsAlthough the extent of actual disruption in parent-adolescent rela-

tions is still being debated, little question exists that parent-child relationschange during early adolescence (e.g., Buchanan et al., 1992; Collins, 1990;Petersen, 1988). As young adolescents become physically mature they of-ten seek more independence and autonomy, and may begin to questionfamily rules and roles, leading to conflicts particularly around issues likedress and appearance, chores, and dating (see Collins, 1990). However,despite these conflicts over day to day issues, parents and adolescents agreemore than they disagree regarding core values linked to education, politics,and spirituality.

Parents and young adolescents also have fewer interactions and dofewer things together outside the home than they did at an earlier periodas illustrated by the horror many young adolescents express at seeing theirparents at places like shopping malls. Steinberg (1990) argued that this"distancing" in the relations between young adolescents and parents is a

20

3 3


natural part of pubertal development, citing evidence from nonhuman pri-mates that puberty is the time at which parents and offspring often go theirseparate ways. Because parents and young adolescents in our culture usu-ally continue to live together for a long time after puberty, distancing ratherthan complete separation may be the evolutionary vestige in humans. Al-though he did not take an evolutionary perspective, Collins (1990) alsoconcluded that the distancing in parent-adolescent relations has great func-tional value for young adolescents, in that it fosters their individuation fromtheir parents, allows them to try more things on their own, and developstheir own competencies and efficacy.

D School transitions and young adolescent developmentFor some, early adolescence marks the beginning of a downward spi-

ral leading to academic failure and school dropout. For example, Simmonsand Blyth (1987) found a marked decline in some young adolescents' schoolgrades as they moved into junior high school a decline that was predic-tive of subsequent school failure and dropout. Similar declines have beendocumented for such motivational constructs as: interest in school, intrin-sic motivation, self-concepts/self-perceptions, and confidence in one's in-tellectual abilities, especially following failure. Finally, there are also in-creases during early adolescence in such negative motivational and behav-ioral characteristics as test anxiety, learned helpless responses to failure,focus on self-evaluation rather than task mastery, and both truancy andschool dropout (See Eccles & Midgley, 1989; Wigfield, Eccles & Pintrich,1996). Although these changes are not extreme for most students, there issufficient evidence of gradual decline in various indicators of academicmotivation, behavior, and self-perception over these years to make onewonder what is happening. Although few researchers have gathered infor-mation on ethnic or social class differences in these declines, we know thatacademic failure and dropping out are especially problematic among someethnic groups and among youth from low SES communities and families;thus, it is likely that these groups are particularly likely to show these de-clines in academic motivation and self-perception as they move into, andthrough, the secondary school years.

A variety of explanations have been offered for these "negative"changes. Some have suggested that declines such as these result from theintraspsychic upheaval assumed to be associated with young adolescentdevelopment (e.g. Blos, 1979). Others have suggested that it is the coinci-dence of the timing of multiple life changes (e.g., Simmons & Blyth, 1987).Still others have suggested that it is the nature of the junior high school

21

3 4


environment itself rather than the transition per se that is important. Draw-ing upon Person-Environment Fit theory, Eccles and Midgley (1989) pro-posed that the negative motivational and behavioral changes associated withearly adolescence could result from traditional junior high schools not pro-viding appropriate educational environments for young adolescents. Ac-cording to Person-Environment Fit theory, behavior, motivation, and men-tal health are influenced by the fit between the characteristics individualsbring to their social environments and the characteristics of these socialenvironments. Individuals are not likely to do very well, or be very moti-vated if they are in social environments that do not fit their psychologicalneeds. If the social environments in the typical middle grades schools donot fit very well with the psychological needs of young adolescents, thenPerson-Environment Fit theory predicts a decline in their motivation, in-terest, performance, and behavior as they move into this environment. Someevidence exists for each of these perspectives. Given our own research wewill focus on the evidence for the Person-Environment Fit theory.

1:1 The relation of changes in school environments tomotivational changes during early adolescence

Researchers have documented the impact of classroom and school envi-ronmental characteristics on motivation. For example, the big school/ smallschools literature has demonstrated the motivational advantages of smallsecondary schools especially for marginal students (Barker & Gump, 1964).Similarly, the teacher efficacy literature has documented the positive stu-dent motivational consequences of high teacher efficacy (Ashton, 1985;Brookover, Beady, Flood, Schweitzer & Wisenbaker, 1979). Finally, orga-nizational psychology has demonstrated the importance of participatorywork structures on worker motivation (Lawler, 1976). The list of such in-fluences could, of course, go on for several pages. The point is that theremay be systematic differences between the academic environments in typi-cal elementary schools and those in typical junior high schools and middleschools; if so, these differences could account for some of the motivationalchanges seen among young adolescents as they make the transition intojunior high school or middle school. In other words, the motivational prob-lems seen during early adolescence may be a consequence of the type ofchange in the school environment rather than characteristics of the devel-opmental period per se.

Eccles and her colleagues (e.g., Eccles et al., 1993) called this phe-nomenon "Stage-Environment Fit." At the most basic level, this perspec-tive suggests the importance of looking at the fit between the needs of

22

3 5


young adolescents and the opportunities afforded them in their middle gradesschool environment. A poor fit would help explain the declines in motiva-tion associated with the transition to either junior high or middle school.More specifically, these researchers suggested that different types of edu-cational environments may be needed for different age groups to meet theindividual's developmental needs and to foster continued developmentalgrowth. Exposure to the developmentally appropriate environment wouldfacilitate both motivation and continued growth; in contrast, exposure to adevelopmentally inappropriate environment, especially a developmentallyregressive environment would create a particularly poor person-environ-ment fit, which, in turn, would lead to declines in motivation as well as inthe attachment to the goals of the institution. Imagine two trajectories: onea developmental trajectory of individual growth, the other a trajectory ofenvironmental change across the school years. Positive motivational con-sequences are predicted when these two trajectories are in synchrony witheach other; that is, when the environment is both responsive to the chang-ing needs of the individual and offers the kinds of stimulation that willpropel continued positive growth. In other words, transition to a facilita-tive and developmentally appropriate environment, even at this vulnerableage, should have a positive impact on children's perceptions of themselvesand their educational environment. In contrast, negative motivational con-sequences are predicted when these two trajectories are out of synchrony.If this is true, then a transition into a developmentally inappropriate educa-tional environment should result in the types of motivational declines thathave been identified as occurring with the transition into junior high school.

Eccles and Midgley (1989) further argued that many young adoles-cents experience developmentally inappropriate changes in a cluster of class-room organizational, instructional, and climate variables, including taskstructure, task complexity, grouping practices, evaluation techniques, mo-tivational strategies, locus of responsibility for learning, and quality ofteacher-student and student-student relationships as they move into eithermiddle school or junior high school. They argued, in turn, that these expe-riences contribute to the negative change in students' motivation and achieve-ment-related beliefs assumed to coincide with the transition into junior highschool. Research supports these suggestions. For example, Simmons & Blyth(1987) pointed out that most junior high schools are substantially largerthan elementary schools and instruction is also more likely to be organizedand taught departmentally. As a result of both of these differences, juniorhigh school teachers typically teach several different groups of studentseach day and are unlikely to teach any particular students for more than one

23

3 6


year. In addition, students typically have several teachers each day withlittle opportunity to interact with any one teacher on any dimension exceptthe academic content of what is being taught and disciplinary issues. Thus,the opportunity for forming close relationships between students and teach-ers is effectively eliminated at precisely the point in the students' develop-ment when they have a great need for guidance and support from non-familial adults (see Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development, 1989).Such changes in student-teacher relationships, in turn, are likely to under-mine the sense of community and trust between students and teachersleading to a lowered sense of efficacy among the teachers, an increasedreliance on authoritarian control practices by the teachers, and an increasedsense of alienation among the students. Such changes are also likely todecrease the probability that any particular student's difficulties will benoticed early enough to get the student necessary help thus increasing thelikelihood that students on the edge will be allowed to slip onto negativetrajectories leading to increased school failure and dropout.

Consistent evidence also exists of the kinds of changes at the class-room level that would undermine young adolescents' school motivation.Further, evidence is beginning to emerge documenting the negative impactof these changes in school experience on motivation (see Eccles & Midgley,1989 and Eccles et al., 1993, for details of particular studies). First, despitethe increasing maturity of students, junior high school classrooms, com-pared to elementary school classrooms, are characterized by a greater em-phasis on teacher control and discipline, and fewer opportunities for stu-dent decision making, choice, and self-management. Such a mismatch be-tween young adolescents' desires for autonomy and control and their per-ception of the opportunities in their environments should result in a declinein the adolescents' intrinsic motivation and interest in school; and this isexactly what happens (see Mac Iver & Reuman, 1988).

Second, junior high school classrooms are characterized by a lesspersonal and positive teacher/student relationship than elementary schoolclassrooms. The implications of this decline were discussed earlier.

Third, junior high schools are more likely to use whole class taskorganization and between classroom ability grouping than elementaryschools. Differences such as these are likely to lead to increases in socialcomparison, in concerns about evaluation, and in competitiveness (e.g., seeRosenholtz & Simpson, 1984). They may also increase the likelihood thatteachers will use normative grading criteria and more public forms of evalu-ation, both of which are likely to impact negatively on many young adoles-cents' self-perceptions and motivation. These differences may also make

24

3 7


aptitude differences more salient to junior high school teachers and stu-dents, leading to increased teacher expectancy effects and decreased feel-ings of efficacy among teachers (see Eccles & Wigfield, 1989).

Fourth, junior high school teachers feel less effective as teachers, es-pecially for low-ability students. Several studies have documented the im-pact of teacher efficacy on student beliefs, attitudes, motivation, and achieve-ment (e.g., Ashton, 1985; Brookover et al., 1979). Given these associa-tions, it is not surprising that differences in teachers' sense of efficacy be-fore and after the transition to junior high school contribute to the declinein young adolescents' beliefs about their academic competency and poten-tial (see Midgley, Feldlaufer, & Eccles, 1989).

Finally, junior high school teachers appear to use a higher standard injudging students' competence and in grading their performance than doelementary school teachers. There is no stronger predictor of students' self-confidence and efficacy than the grades they receive. If grades change, thenwe would expect to see a concomitant shift in the students' self-perceptionsand academic motivation. Junior high school teachers use stricter and moresocial comparison-based standards than elementary school teachers to as-sess student competency and to evaluate student performance, leading to adrop in grades for many young adolescents as they make the junior highschool transition (e.g., Simmons & Blyth, 1987).

IZI SummaryChanges such as those reviewed above are likely to have a negative effecton many children's motivational orientation toward school at any gradelevel. But Eccles and Midgley (1989) have argued that these types of schoolenvironmental changes are particularly harmful during early adolescencegiven what is known about psychological development during this stage oflife. Young adolescent development is characterized by increases in desirefor autonomy, peer orientation, self-focus and self-consciousness, salienceof identity issues, concern over heterosexual relationships, and capacityfor abstract cognitive activity (see Brown, 1990; Eccles & Midgley, 1989;Keating, 1990; Simmons & Blyth, 1987). Simmons and Blyth (1987) ar-gued that young adolescents need a reasonably safe, as well as an intellec-tually challenging environment to adapt to these shifts an environmentthat provides a "zone of comfort" as well as challenging new opportunitiesfor growth. In light of these needs, the environmental changes often associ-ated with transition to middle grade schools are likely to be particularlyharmful in that they emphasize competition, social comparison, and abilityself-assessment at a time of heightened self-focus; they decrease decision

25

3 8


making and choice at a time when the desire for control is growing; theyemphasize lower level cognitive strategies at a time when the ability to usehigher level strategies is increasing; and they disrupt social networks at atime when adolescents are especially concerned with peer relationshipsand may be in special need of close adult relationships outside of the home.The nature of these environmental changes, coupled with the normal courseof individual development, is likely to result in a developmental mismatchso that the "fit" between the young adolescent and the classroom environ-ment is particularly poor, increasing the risk of negative motivational out-comes, especially for those students who are having difficulty succeedingin school academically. 1:1

ReferencesAdams, G. R., Montemayor, R., & Gullotta, T. P. (Eds.). (1989). Biology of

adolescent behavior and development. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Ashton, P. (1985). Motivation and the teacher's sense of efficacy. In C. Ames

& R. Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation in education (Vol. 2, Pp. 141-171).Orlando: Academic Press.

Barker, R., & Gump, P. (1964). Big school, small school: High school size

and student behavior. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Berndt, T. J., & Perry, T. B. (1990). Distinctive features of early adolescent

friendships. In R Montemayor, G. R. Adams, & T. P. Gullotta (Eds.), From child-

hood to adolescence: A transitional period? (pp. 269-287). Newbury Park, CA:Sage.

Bjorklund, D. (1989). Children's thinking: Developmental function and in-dividual differences. Pacific Grove CA: Brooks-Cole.

Blos, P. (1979). The adolescent passage. New York: International Universi-ties Press.

Brookover, W., Beady, C., Flood, P., Schweitzer, J., & Wisenbaker, J. (1979).

School social systems and student achievement: Schools can make a difference.New York: Praeger.

3 9 26


Brooks-Gunn, J., & Reiter, E. 0. (1990). The role of pubertal processes. In

S. S. Feldman & G. R. Elliott (Eds.), At the threshold: The developing adolescent

(pp. 16-53). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Brooks-Gunn, J., & Warren, M. P. (1988). The psychological significance of

secondary sexual characteristics in 9- to 11-year old girls. Child Development, 59

(4), 161-169.

Brown, B. B. (1990). Peer groups and peer cultures. In S. S. Feldman & G.

R. Elliott (Eds.), At the threshold: The developing adolescent (pp. 171-196). Cam-

bridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Buchanan, C. M., Eccles, J. S., & Becker, J. B. (1992). Are adolescents thevictims of raging hormones? Evidence for activational effects of hormones onmoods and behaviors at adolescence. Psychological Bulletin, 111 (1), 62-107.

Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development (1989). Turning points: Pre-

paring American youth for the 21st century. New York: Carnegie Corporation.

Collins, W. A. (1990). Parent-child relationships in the transition to adoles-

cence: Continuity and change in interaction, affect, and cognition. In R.Montemayor, G. R. Adams, & T. P. Gullotta (Eds.), From childhood to adoles-cence: A transitional period? (pp. 85-106). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Eccles, J. S., Lord, S. E., Roeser, R. W., Barber, B. L., & Jozefowicz, D. M.

H. (1996). The association of school transitions in early adolescence with devel-opmental trajectories through high school. In J. Schulenberg, J. Maggs, & K.Hurrelmann, (Eds.), Health risks and developmental transitions during adoles-cence. (pp. 283-320). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Eccles, J. S., & Midgley, C. (1989). Stage - environment fit: Developmen-tally appropriate classrooms for young adolescents. In C. Ames & R. Ames (Eds.),

Research on motivation in education (Vol. 3, pp. 139-186). San Diego, CA: Aca-

demic Press.Eccles, J. S., Midgley, C., Buchanan, C. M., Wigfield, A., Reuman, D., &

Mac Iver, D. (1993). Development during adolescence: The impact of stage/envi-

ronment fit. American Psychologist, 48 (2), 90-101.Entwisle, D. R. (1990). Schooling and the adolescent. In S. S. Feldman & G.

R. Elliott (Eds.), At the threshold: The developing adolescent (pp. 197-224). Cam-

bridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Erikson, E. H. (1963). Childhood and society. New York: Norton.

Harter, S. (1990). Causes, correlates and the functional role of self-worth: A

life-span perspective. In R. J. Sternberg & J. Kolligian (Eds.), Competence consid-

ered (pp. 67-97). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Keating, D. P. (1990). Adolescent thinking. In S. S. Feldman & G. R. Elliott

(Eds.), At the threshold: The developing adolescent (pp. 54-89). Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press.27

4 0


Lawler, E. E. (1976). Control systems in organizations. In M. D. Dunnette(Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1247-1293).Chicago: Rand McNally.

Mac Iver, D., & Reuman, D. A. (1988, April). Decision making in the class-

room and early adolescents' valuing of mathematics. Paper presented at the annual

meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans.

Magnusson, D. (1988). Individual development from an interactional per-spective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Midgley, C. M., Feldlaufer, H., & Eccles, J. S. (1989). Changes in teacher

efficacy and student self- and task-related beliefs during the transition to juniorhigh school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81 (2), 247-258.

Office of Educational Research and Improvement (1988). Youth indicators1988. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Olweus, D., Mattssoon, A., Schalling, D., & Low, H. (1988). Circulatingtestosterone levels and aggression in adolescent males: A causal analysis. Psycho-somatic Medicine, 50 (3), 261-272.

Petersen, A. (1988). Adolescent development. Annual Review of Psychol-ogy, 39, 583-607.

Petersen, A., & Taylor, B. (1980). The biological approach to adolescence:

Biological change and psychosocial adaptation. In Adelson, J. (Ed.), Handbook of

the psychology of adolescence (pp. 117-155). New York: Wiley.

Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1973). Memory and intelligence. London: Routledge

and Kegan Paul.

Rosenholtz, S. J., & Simpson, C. (1984). The formation of ability concep-tions: Developmental trend or social construction?Review of Educational Research,

54 (1), 301-325.

Selman, R. L. (1980). The growth of interpersonal understanding. New York:

Academic Press.

Siegler, R. S. (1986). Children's thinking. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: PrenticeHall.

Simmons, R. G., & Blyth, D. A. (1987). Moving,into adolescence: The im-

pact of pubertal change and school context. Hawthorn, NY: Aldine de Gruyler.

Stattin, H., & Magnusson, D. (1990). Pubertal maturation in female devel-opment. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Steinberg, L. (1990). Autonomy, conflict, and harmony in the family rela-tionship. In S. S. Feldman & G. R. Elliott (Eds.), At the threshold: The developing

adolescent (pp. 255-276). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Sullivan, H. S. (1953). The interpei-sonal theory of psychiatry. New York:Norton.

28

41


Susman, E. J., Inoff-Germain, G., Nottelmann, E. D., Loriaux, D. L., Cutler,

C. B., & Chrousos, G. P. (1987). Hormones, emotional dispositions, and aggres-sive attributes in young adolescents. Child Development, 58 (4), 1114-1134.

Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (1992). The development of achievement task

values: A theoretical analysis. Developmental Review, 12 (2), 265-310.Wigfield, A., Eccles, J., Mac Iver, D., Reuman, D., & Midgley, C. (1991).

Transitions at early adolescence: Changes in children's domain-specific self-per-ceptions and general self-esteem across the transition to junior high school. Devel-

opmental Psychology, 27 (4), 552-565.

Wigfield, A., Eccles, J. S., & Pintrich, P. R. (1996). Development betweenthe ages of eleven and twenty-five. In D. C. Berliner and R. C. Calfee (Eds.), The

handbook of educational psychology (pp. 148-155). New York: Macmillan Pub-

lishing.

Zimmerman, B. J. (1989). A social cognitive view of self-regulated learning.

Journal of Educational Psychology, 81 (3), 329-339.

29

EST COPY AVM

4 2

lI

Richard Lipka

Enh ndng Sellf-C nee t/Self-Esteem inY ung A lesc nts

Cognitive learning is hard-won by someone whose life is in affec-tive disarray! At the very heart of those affective concerns is thedevelopment of clear self-concept and positive self-esteem. These

dimensions of self represent the central feature of the human personalitywhich in the case of young adolescents unifies the physical, social, andcognitive characteristics into a sense of identity, adequacy, and affirmation.From tan understanding of self springs a host of other variables such asbehavior, motivation, and the perception of others. Understanding the selfbrings us closer to understanding the young adolescent. Attending to theself in school brings us closer to developing the kind of middle schoolyoung adolescents need and deserve.

I will attempt four purposes within this very short chapter: (1) clarifi-cation of the terms self-concept and self-esteem, which are often errone-ously used interchangeably, (2) discussion of recent developments in ourknowledge base concerning self-concept, self-esteem, and the young ado-lescent, (3) identification of where the middle school should fit in promot-ing clear self-concept and positive self-esteem, and (4) recognition of chal-lenges that exist for practitioners and researchers.

ID Self-concept and self-esteem definedThe ability to interpret, generalize, and apply the findings of self-

perception research can be directly attributed to the lack of clear defini-tions for the constructs of self-concept and self-esteem. Self-concept isdefined as the perception(s) one has of oneself in terms of personal at-tributes and the various roles which are played or fulfilled by the indi-

314 3


vidual. Thus, a young adolescent might perceive self as a son or daughter,fat or thin, as a "successful" student or a poor basketball player. Self-con-cept then is a descriptive perception of self in terms of one's various rolesand attributes. Self-esteem, on the other hand, is the valuative assessmentone makes regarding personal satisfaction with roles, attributes, and/or thequality of one's performances. These decisions are made on the basis ofpersonal values, although given the cognitive development of young ado-lescents, these decisions will, to a large degree, be considered environmen-tally induced. A young adolescent might view him/herself as lacking orallanguage skills and describe self as a poor English student. Depending uponpersonal values, however, he/she may desire to change this situation, keepit the same, or may simply not care enough to change. As noted, this valu-ing process is most likely a function of the environmental context withinwhich the role is played. Many of these contexts are defined in terms of"significant others" whom the individual recognizes as influential. Whilein the early years parents are the "most" significant others, during earlyadolescence peers and teachers emerge as significant in a host of specificsituations.

The process of self-perceiving is best described as an interaction be-tween self-concept and self-esteem as various roles are played or fulfilledin situations through which feedback and influence are received. In thisway, the young adolescent may develop or refine self-concept descriptionsand/or make valuation decisions with regard to self-esteem. Actual self-esteem can only be ascertained by eliciting the value or relative prioritywhich the individual attaches to the attribute.

Self in early adolescenceShirk and Renouf 's (1992) contribution has been to place the devel-

opment of self in early adolescence into a context of pivotal socio-emo-tional developmental tasks. Using the guiding framework of Erikson (1963),Shirk and Renouf identified two tasks that are the purview of early adoles-cence. These tasks are the conservation of self and maintenance of positiveself-esteem. Conservation of self is the ability to promote continuity bylinking change to existing self structures. It appears that early adolescenceis the period when issues of continuity in the self-concept are most salientto the individual. This is due in large part to a movement from self-under-standing based on behaviors, physical attributes, and physical competen-cies to self understanding based upon psychological traits and more ab-stract skills such as communication and social skills. While the mainte-nance of positive self-estee4n4s important throughout one's life, develop-

32

ENHANCING SELF-CONCEPT/SELF-ESTEEM IN YOUNG ADOLESCENTS

mental transitions make early adolescence an especially critical period.These transitions include biological, social, and cognitive challenges. Bio-logically, the transition to puberty in relationship to one's cohort is mostprofound. That is, to be "off-time" either early or late in relation to one'speers has the potential to erode positive self-esteem.

In the social arena, young adolescents acquire three additional do-mains important to self-esteem. The three additional domains are job com-petence, romantic appeal, and close friendships domains that suggest theneed for the acquisition and coordination of new skills. Acquiring new skillsnot only provides a venue for new successes but also new failures, and assuch represent new challenges for young adolescent self-esteem.

The emergence of increased cognitive abilities also provides a chal-lenge to young adolescent self-esteem. The young person literally beginsto develop an awareness of his or her own self-awareness. As the individualbegins to view self in terms of abstractions or psychological traits, newdemands are made upon his or her self-esteem.

During a recent effort to disentangle the effects of chronological agefrom school experience on self-esteem, Lipka, Hurford, and Litten (1992)analyzed data that suggested middle school students were indeed awarethat society is age-graded and has a set of expectations regarding age andappropriate behavior. To perceive oneself as "on-time" with regard to one'slife span makes for a sense of predictable life cycle and positive self-es-teem. To perceive oneself as "off-time" and having fallen short of the goalsor the expectations held by significant others in their lives may lead to aresultant decay in self-esteem. Individuals in this latter case maymisperceive, distort, or avoid any new situations or experiences that accen-tuate the perception that they hold of being off-time. This may be a keyingredient in understanding at-risk or potential dropouts in middle schoolenvironments.

One of the most exciting areas of research is that which is calling intoquestion the "storm and stress" characterization of young adolescent andadolescent development. Evidence is amassing (see Demo & Savin-Will-iams, 1992; Shirk & Renouf, 1992) that Rosenberg's (1985) distinctionbetween the barometric self-concept and the baseline self-concept is criti-cal in understanding early adolescence. The barometric self refers to mo-ment to moment fluctuations, and clearly early adolescence has the widestarray of peaks and valleys of any age period. Baseline self, on the otherhand, refers to a underlying self-concept that changes slowly, over an ex-tended period of time, and is focused upon striving towards healthy self-development. To continue to focus solely upon the barometric self (e.g.

33

4 5


"hormones with feet") at the expense of the baseline self is both wrong-headed and wrong hearted! Our challenge, then, as middle level educatorsis to acknowledge barometric self yet expend our efforts and resources tofacilitate the striving towards healthy self-development represented by thebaseline self.

ID The middle school we needAt present, the treatment of self-concept and self-esteem in middle

schools can be viewed as on a continuum with four points from least effec-tive to most effective practices. At the lowest level we see the utilization oftechniques that promote self-revelation and affirmation as evidenced bygroup "raps" and classroom posters and prizes that encourage a "feel goodabout yourself" orientation. The value in such approaches is that youngpeople may view themselves as being surrounded by "nice" rather than"mean" people. However, the day to day realities of competition, grading,sorting, and labeling quickly have young people viewing these group ac-tivities and posters as short side trips in the journey through school. Thesecond level involves the treatment of affective education as a program orunit two weeks on self-esteem followed by a two-week unit on farmproducts of Kansas. To make a real difference the self-direction, personaldecision- making, goal-setting objectives of such units would need to ex-tend throughout the school, school day, and school year. The relative inef-fectiveness of these first two levels in the continuum have made middlelevel educators easy targets for critics (e.g. Krauthamrner, 1990) and haveincreased resistance to examining the human condition in our middleschools.

The third approach on the continuum is one known as the ecologicalapproach (see Beane & Lipka, 1986, 1987). This approach begins with thequestion of whether the school as a whole is a self-enhancing environmentand then proceeds to examine every facet of the school in light of thatquestion. To date, this questioning process has led to the advocacy, empiri-cally based, of a number of practices in the school setting. Such practicesinclude cooperative learning, an approach that encourages young adoles-cents to learn how to work well with others. As noted earlier in the chapter,young adolescents have a powerful drive to form relationships with peers,to find a place in the group, and to earn some degree of status. To be "onewith others" is so powerful that young men and women will risk conflictwith adults and give up some aspects (e.g. clothing, language) of their indi-viduality for it.

The emergence of the needs of job competence, self-worth, and altru-

34

4 6


ism are ably addressed by placing young people in projects that involveservice to others. Under the auspices of the school, service learning projectstake young adolescents out of the school into the community where theymay assist preschoolers, help the elderly, help with environmental prob-lems, work to improve community recreation opportunities, and so on. Inaddition to all the positive aspects of self-esteem associated with "earningone's way," service learning projects have the real potential to enlightencitizens about the competence of young adolescents and their capability tocare for and about others. Teacher-student planning means working in apartnership to articulate a problem/concern, develop objectives, locate re-sources, and evaluate progress in fulfilling objectives. While the foci ofsuch efforts may be many and varied, the value of the method is that ithelps young adolescents gradually exercise more control over their lives inschool. Exercising more control over one's life reduces feelings of power-lessness and enhances self-esteem. Advisor-advisee programs with an em-phasis upon personal, social growth, and the attempts to work closely withparents of the age group, are additional elements of a self-enhancing school.

The final stop on this continuum is the one that addresses the short-coming of the ecological position which is not addressing conditions out-side the school that enter into the ongoing formation and alteration of self-perceptions. Jim Beane titled this the integrated approach (see Beane, 1991,1992, 1993, 1994) where the curriculum is centered on helping young ado-lescents search for self and social meaning in their lives.

Planning of the curriculum begins with young people identifying ques-tions and concerns they have about themselves and the larger world in whichthey (and we) live. Common questions and concerns are shared in smallgroups, and an attempt is made to connect questions about self with relatedquestions about the world; for example, issues about personal health areconnected to concerns about environmental problems. Clusters of ques-tions are organized by themes, and the whole group then decides uponactivities they will do to address the themes and answer the questions.Themes that have emerged from such planning have included "living in thefuture," "jobs, careers, and money," "sex, health, genetics," "conflict, gangs,and violence," "cultures," and many more.

It does not take much imagination to see how self-perceptions are atthe very center of such a curriculum. More than that, this kind of curricu-lum brings questions of the self into connection with the larger world, thusintegrating self and social interests. And giving young people a powerfulvoice in planning the curriculum is a direct attempt to develop authenticefficacy: what young people have to say counts for something. Further-

35

47


more, young people will be in a continuing process of constructing per-sonal and social meanings rather than having themselves and their worlddefined exclusively for them by adults (Beane, 1994). As middle level edu-cators, we must examine where we are on the continuum and gather theresources necessary to move to the most effective practices.

CI The teachers we needWhat type of teachers will be required to move middle schools to the

third and fourth positions on the continuum? Historically, part of the an-swer can be found in the writings of Jersild (1952, 1955) and Combs (1962).Borich (in press) explored the dimensions of teacher self-concept and self-esteem that have the potential to expand current conceptions of effectiveteaching. As in the past, Borich demonstrated that teachers with clear self-concept and positive self-esteem function within the teaching role as sig-nificant others for young adolescents and create a classroom environmentthat fosters clear self-concept and positive self-esteem in their pupils. Thepower in his present work is the determination of the absolute necessity forteachers to have work environments and significant others (e.g. adminis-trators, teacher educators, colleagues) in their lives providing the facilitat-ing conditions necessary for the promotion of a healthy, functional view of"self as teacher."

Hamachek (in press) made a strong case for teachers developing their"emotional intelligence" which is comprised of the five components of self-awareness, mood management, self-motivation, empathic skills, and rela-tionship skills. Teachers who focus upon their emotional intelligence andhave a clear and coherent picture of themselves as persons/professionalsare most likely to have their professional lives characterized by the follow-ing behavioral descriptions:

1. They are inclined to combine a warm and friendly attitude with firm,but reasonable, expectations.

2. They project an enthusiasm for their work that lends excitement totheir teaching.

3. They are by no means perfect, in the sense of doing and saying justthe right thing at all times. (This has less to do with something thatteachers consciously do, and more to do, perhaps, with the wide lati-tude of teacher imperfections that students can live with as long asthe core person is basically fair and decent.)

4. Intellectually, they are thoroughly grounded in their subject area,which, by virtue of a broad base of interests, they are able to connectto related areas of knowledge.

4 8 36


5. They are ready to assume responsibility for student outcomes, whichthey reflect in their efforts to make sure that all students have a chanceto learn.

6. They make a point to know their students as individuals and to re-spond to them as individuals; they go beyond simply seeing them as"students."

7. They provide definite study guidelines; they are as interested in get-ting their students prepared to know as they are in evaluating whatthey know.

8. They are able to challenge without being offensive and to encouragewithout being condescending; more importantly, they challenge whenthat is appropriate and they encourage when that is needed. Neitherbehavior is indiscriminately practiced.

9. They give feedback that is personalized, an effect that makes the feed-back more believable and powerful.

10. They take time to reflect about their work, their students, and them-selves as teachers; they are, in a word, thoughtful.

11. They work on developing a positive rapport that serves as the inter-personal medium within which high, but reasonable expectations andconstructive, critical feedback can be transmitted.

12. They are able to be flexibly adaptive in terms of using direct orindirect methods of teaching to meet various students' abilities andneeds. pp. 21-22

For a very compatible set of behavioral descriptions of "the effectivemiddle school teacher" see Middle Level Teachers: Protraits of Excellence(Arth, Lounsbury, McEwin, & Swaim, 1995). In addition to identifyingsixteen characteristics, this book provides the firsthand views of 48 teach-ers about how these characteristics are manifested in their teaching andtheir reflections on the special nature of middle level teaching.

Li The challengesAs with any complex educational issue the challenges are many. For

practitioners, I urge more public declarations of the fact that cognitive learn-ing is hard-won by someone whose life is in affective disarray. I urge moreutilization of our growing knowledge base about self-concept and self-es-teem. I urge more ownership of this knowledge base by participating in theselection of research questions of interest and value to our day to day livesin school. For researchers, I urge a better understanding of the philosophyand features of the middle school. I urge a clear focus upon "self" as pri-mary variables of interest and not as secondary concerns in research with

37

4 9


other agendas. And, finally I urge constructive dialogues between practi-tioners and researchers about the assets and liabilities inherit in the "prac-tice of research" versus the "research of practice." El

ReferencesArth, A., Lounsbury, J., McEwin, K., & Swaim, J. (1995). Middle level teach-

ers: Portraits of excellence. Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association/

National Association of Secondary School Principals.

Beane, J. A. (1991). The middle school: The natural home of integrated cur-

riculum. Educational Leadership, 49 (2), 943.

Beane, J. A. (1992). Turning the floor over: Reflections on a middle schoolcurriculum. Middle School Journal, 23 (3), 34-40.

Beane, J. A. (1993). A middle school curriculum: From rhetoric to reality.Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association

Beane, J. A. (1994). Cluttered terrain: The school's interest in the self. In T.M. Brinthaupt & R. P. Lipka (Eds.), Changing the self: Philosophies, techniques,

and experiences. (pp. 69-87). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Beane, J. A., & Lipka, R. P. (1986). Self-concept and self-esteem and thecurriculum. New York: Teachers College Press.

Beane, J. A., & Lipka R. P. (1987). When the kids come first: Enhancingself-esteem. Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association.

Borich, G. D. (in press). Dimensions of self that influence effective teach-ing. In R. P. Lipka & T. M. Brinthaupt (Eds.), The role of self in teacher develop-

ment. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Combs, A. W. (Ed.). (1962). Perceiving, behaving, becoming. Washington,DC: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Demo, D. H., & Savin-Williams, R. C. (1992). Self-concept, stability andchange during adolescence. In R. P. Lipka & T. M. Brinthaupt (Eds.), Self-per-spectives across the life span (pp.116-148). Albany, NY: State University of NewYork Press.

Erikson, E. (1963). Childhood and society. (2nd ed.) New York: Norton.

Hamachek, D. (in press). Effective teachers: What they do, how they do it,and the importance of self knowledge. In R. R Lipka & T. M. Brinthaupt (Eds.),The role of self in teacher development. Albany, NY: State University at New York

Press.

Jersild, A. T. (1952). In search of self. New York: Teachers College Press.

Jersild, A. T. (1955). When teachers face themselves. New York: TeachersCollege Press.

Krauthammer, C. (1990, February 5). Education: Doing bad and feeling good.

Time, 78.

38


Lipka, R. P., Hurford, D. P., & Litten, M. J. (1992). Self in school: Age and

school experience effects. In R. P. Lipka and T. M. Brinthaupt (Eds.), Self- per-

spective across the life-span (pp.93-115). Albany, NY: State University of NewYork Press.

Rosenberg, M. (1985). Self-concept and psychological well-being in ado-lescence. In R. Leahy (Ed.), The development of self (pp. 205-242). New York:Academic Press.

Shirk, S. R., & Renouf, A. G. (1992). The tasks of self-development in middle

childhood and early adolescence. In R. P. Lipka & T. M. Brinthaupt (Eds.), Self-

perspective across the life span (pp.53-90). Albany, NY: State University of New

York Press.

39

Lyn ley Hicks Anderman and Carol Midgley

Motivation and Middle School Students

Few educators would argue with the premise that student motivationis an important influence on learning. Whether students select ad-vanced courses of study or drop out of school; whether they work

intensively and persist in the face of difficulty or procrastinate and workhalfheartedly; whether they set realistic goals for themselves and then setabout achieving them in an efficient manner or flounder through their dayswith little sense of direction; these behaviors reflect important aspects ofstudent motivation. Student motivation is of particular importance for thosewho work with young adolescents.

Considerable research has shown a decline in motivation and perfor-mance for many children as they move from elementary school into middleschool (see Eccles & Midgley, 1989, for a review). Often it has been as-sumed that this decline is largely due to physiological and psychologicalchanges associated with puberty and, therefore, is somewhat inevitable.This assumption has been challenged, however, by research that demon-strates that the nature of motivational change on entry to middle schooldepends on characteristics of the learning environment in which studentsfind themselves (see Midgley, 1993). That is, when students make a transi-tion into a facilitative school environment, motivation and performance canbe maintained or even improved. These findings represent an importantaspect of current thinking in motivational theory. That is, any given student'squality of motivation reflects an interaction of characteristics of the indi-vidual and of the environment surrounding her or him. Differences in stu-dents' academic histories, their values and interests, and especially theirbeliefs about the purpose of school and the reasons for their own achieve-

415 2


ment are crucial to consider. Thus, it is difficult to prescribe a "one size fitsall" approach to motivating students. Nevertheless, based on many researchstudies, some general patterns do appear to hold true for a wide range ofstudents. Schools and teachers are not completely responsible for their stu-dents' motivation but neither are they powerless to influence it. The aim ofthis chapter, therefore, is to outline some suggestions for enhancing stu-dent motivation, supported by research findings, that are particularly rel-evant for middle school teachers and administrators. Currently, a numberof different approaches to the study of motivation exist, including expect-ancy-value, self-efficacy, self-worth, and intrinsic motivation theories. It isnot our purpose here to review all of these; they are described in detailelsewhere (see Pintrich & Schunk, 1996; Stipek, 1988, for reviews). Herewe discuss three theories that are currently prominent and that have par-ticular relevance for young adolescent students and their teachers.

CI Attribution theoryThe first point to be emphasized is that students'perceptions of their

educational experiences are generally more influential for their motivationthan the actual, objective reality of those experiences. For example, a his-tory of success in a given subject area is generally assumed to lead one tocontinue persisting in that area. Weiner (1985, 1986), however, pointed outthat students' beliefs about the reasons for their success (i.e., their attribu-tions for success) will determine whether this is true. Imagine a 7th gradegirl who has always done well in math but who, seemingly inexplicably,lacks the confidence to elect a challenging math class. Pointing out thisstudent's previous achievements in math may have little effect if she be-lieves that her prior success was mainly due to luck or to the relatively easywork in her earlier classes. In contrast, if the same student believes that herpast success resulted from a combination of good work habits and consis-tent effort, she is more likely to take up the challenge of an advanced class.Students' attributions for failure are also important influences on motiva-tion. When students have a history of failure in school, it is particularlydifficult for them to sustain the motivation to keep trying. Students whobelieve that their poor performance is due to factors out of their control(e.g., their own lack of ability or the perceived animosity of teachers) areunlikely to see any reason to hope for an improvement. In contrast, if stu-dents attribute their poor performance to a lack of important skills or topoor study habits (i.e., to something they can control), they are more likelyto persist in the future. The implications of attribution theory for teachersrevolve around the importance of understanding what students believe about

42

MOTIVATION AND MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDENTS

the reasons for their academic performance. It is clearly important for class-room teachers to listen to students' explanations for past successes andfailures and to be prepared to challenge, if necessary, maladaptive patternsof beliefs. In addition, research has demonstrated (e.g., Graham & Barker,1990) that students make decisions about the ability and effort of one an-other from surprisingly scant evidence in classroom settings. Teachers canunknowingly communicate a range of attitudes about whether ability isfixed or modifiable and their expectations for individual students throughtheir instructional practices (see Graham, 1990). We need to ask ourselveswhat assumptions our behavior is reinforcing: Do we communicate to ourstudents that everyone has the ability to succeed, that effort and appropri-ate strategies are necessary components of improvement, that errors are anessential part of progress and something to be learned from? This emphasison the "messages" that students perceive about the meaning of academictasks also constitutes an important theme in the next theory to be discussed,known as goal theory.

ID Goal theoryWhile attribution theory focuses on the reasons students perceive for

their successes and failures in school, goal theory focuses on the reasons orpurposes students perceive for achieving (e.g., Ames, 1992; Dweck &Leggett, 1988; Maehr & Midgley, 1991; Midgley, 1993; Nicholls, 1989).While different researchers define the constructs slightly differently, twomain goal orientations are generally discussed. These are: 1. Task goals(also referred to as mastery goals, or learning goals). A task goal orienta-tion represents the belief that the purpose of achieving is personal improve-ment and understanding. Students with a task goal orientation focus ontheir own progress in mastering skills and knowledge, and define successin those terms. 2. Ability goals (also referred to as performance goals orego goals). An ability goal orientation represents the belief that the purposeof achieving is the demonstration of ability (or, alternatively, the conceal-ment of a lack of ability). Students with an ability goal orientation focus onappearing competent, often in comparison to others, and define successaccordingly. Studies of students' goal orientations generally find that theadoption of task goals is associated with more adaptive patterns of learningthan is the adoption of ability goals, including the use of more effectivecognitive strategies, a willingness to seek help when it is needed, a greatertendency to engage in challenging tasks, and more positive feelings aboutschool and oneself as a learner (See Anderman & Maehr, 1994, for a re-view. See also Ryan, Hicks, & Midgley, 1997). If adopting a task goal

43

5 4


orientation is related to positive educational outcomes for students, thequestion then arises as to how such an orientation can be fostered. Recentstudies suggest that the policies and practices in classrooms and schoolsinfluence students' goal orientations (e.g., Ames & Archer, 1988; Maehr &Midgley, 1991). Table 1 includes specific suggestions for moving awayfrom an ability-focus and toward a task-focus in middle schools. As de-scribed by Ames (1992), a task or ability focus is conveyed through a con-stellation of policies and practices. That is, students' motivation is not onlyinfluenced by, for example, the ways in which rewards are allocated. Rather,teachers communicate messages to their students about the meaning ofachievement and effort through the full range of instructional decisionsthey make on a daily basis.

IJ Self-determination theoryA third motivational theory of particular importance for middle school

educators is self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985). This theorydescribes students as having three categories of needs: needing a sense ofcompetence, of relatedness to others, and of autonomy (or self-determina-tion). Competence involves understanding how to, and believing that onecan achieve various outcomes. Relatedness involves developing satisfac-tory connections to others in one's social group. Autonomy involves initi-ating and regulating one's own actions. Most of the research in self-deter-mination theory focuses on the latter of these three needs. Within the class-room, autonomy needs could be addressed through allowing some studentchoice and input on classroom decision making. For young adolescent stu-dents, with their increased cognitive abilities and developing sense of iden-tity, a sense of autonomy may be particularly important. Furthermore, stu-dents at this stage say that they want to be included in decision making andto have some sense of control over their activities. Unfortunately, researchsuggests that students in middle schools actually experience fewer oppor-tunities for self-determination than they did in elementary school (e.g.,Midgley & Feldlaufer, 1987). When students' developmental needs are notwell met in their classrooms, their interest in and valuing of academic workcan suffer. How, then, might classrooms support student autonomy, in adap-tive ways? Deci, Vallerand, Pelletier, & Ryan (1991) summarized contex-tual factors that support student autonomy. Features such as the provisionof choice over what types of tasks to engage in and how much time to allotto each, are associated with students' feelings of self-determination. In con-trast, the use of extrinsic rewards, the imposition of deadlines, and an em-phasis on evaluations detract from a feeling of self-determination and lead

55 44

TA

BLE

1

Stra

tegi

es to

Mov

e T

owar

d a

Tas

k-Fo

cuse

d M

iddl

e Sc

hool

Env

iron

men

t

Gro

upin

g

Com

petit

ion/

Coo

pera

tion

Ass

essm

ent

Gra

ding

Rec

ogni

tion/

Rew

ards

/Ince

ntiv

es

Stu

dent

Inpu

t

App

roac

hes

to th

e C

urric

ulum

Aca

dem

ic T

asks

Rem

edia

tion

Mov

e aw

ay fr

omM

ove

tow

ard

Gro

upin

g by

abi

lity

Ove

r-us

e of

sta

ndar

dize

d te

sts

Com

petit

ion

betw

een

stud

ents

Con

test

s w

ith li

mite

d w

inne

rs

Usi

ng te

st d

ata

as a

bas

isfo

r co

mpa

riso

n

Nor

mat

ive

grad

ing

Publ

ic d

ispl

ay o

f gr

ades

Rec

ogni

tion

for

rela

tive

perf

orm

ance

Hon

or r

olls

for

hig

h gr

ades

Ove

r-us

e of

pra

ise,

esp

ecia

lly f

or th

eco

mpl

etio

n of

sho

rt, e

asy

task

s

Dec

isio

ns m

ade

excl

usiv

ely

byad

min

istr

ator

s an

d te

ache

rs

Dep

artm

enta

lized

app

roac

hto

cur

ricu

lum

Rot

e le

arni

ng a

nd m

emor

izat

ion

Ove

r-us

e of

wor

k sh

eets

and

text

book

sD

econ

text

ualiz

ed f

acts

Pull

out p

rogr

ams

Ret

entio

n

Gro

upin

g by

topi

c, in

tere

st, s

tude

nt c

hoic

eFr

eque

nt r

efor

mat

ion

of g

roup

s

Coo

pera

tive

Lea

rnin

g

Usi

ng te

st d

ata

for

diag

nosi

sA

ltern

ativ

es to

test

s su

ch a

s po

rtfo

lios

Gra

ding

for

pro

gres

s, im

prov

emen

tIn

volv

ing

stud

ents

in d

eter

min

ing

thei

r gr

ades

Rec

ogni

tion

of p

rogr

ess

impr

ovem

ent

An

emph

asis

on

lear

ning

for

its

own

sake

Opp

ortu

nitie

s fo

r ch

oice

, ele

ctiv

esSt

uden

t dec

isio

n m

akin

g, s

elf-

sche

dulin

g,se

lf-r

egul

atio

n

The

mat

ic a

ppro

ache

s/in

terd

isci

plin

ary

focu

sV

iew

ing

mis

take

s as

a p

art o

f le

arni

ngA

llow

ing

stud

ents

to r

edo

wor

kE

ncou

ragi

ng s

tude

nts

to ta

ke a

cade

mic

ris

ks

Prov

idin

g ch

alle

ngin

g, c

ompl

ex w

ork

to s

tude

nts

Giv

ing

hom

ewor

k th

at is

enr

ichi

ng,

chal

leng

ing

Enc

oura

ging

pro

blem

sol

ving

, com

preh

ensi

on

Cro

ss-a

ge tu

tori

ng, p

eer

tuto

ring

Enr

ichm

ent

Rep

rinte

dfr

om M

iddl

e Sc

hool

Jou

rnal

, Nov

, 199

2

BE

ST C

OPY

AV

AN

DA

BM

5 6


to a decrease in intrinsic motivation. These findings have been well knownfor some time and many educators are aware of such recommendations. Inpractice, however, providing for students' autonomy in the classroom isnot easy. We recognize that the constraints of grading policies, curriculademands, and scheduling make it very difficult for many teachers to buildflexibility into their programs. Furthermore, classroom management con-cerns often increase when students first attempt to regulate their own learn-ing. It is important to recognize, however, that supporting student autonomydoes not require major upheaval in the classroom or that teachers relin-quish the management of students' behavior. Even small opportunities forchoice, such as whether to work with a partner or independently, or whetherto present a book review as a paper, poster, or class presentation, can in-crease students' sense of self-determination. Students can also be includedin classroom decision making around issues such as seating arrangements,displays of work, and class rules. Finally, it is important to recognize thatstudents' early attempts at regulating their own work may not always besuccessful. Good decision making and time management require practice.Teachers can help their students develop their self-regulation by providinglimited choices between acceptable options, by assisting with breaking largetasks into manageable pieces, and by providing guidelines for students touse in monitoring their own progress. Thus, the teacher's role is less one ofcontrolling students' learning and more one of supporting their efforts to-ward self-determination.

ConclusionMiddle school teachers often teach many students over the course of

a school day, and for a relatively short period of time. Given such briefcontact with so many, it is easy to underestimate the influence that one'steaching practices can have on any one individual. We hope current movesto implement the middle school philosophy (e.g., Carnegie Council onAdolescent Development, 1989) will provide a more facilitative schedulefor both teachers and students. But even in a highly structured and depart-mentalized middle school, teachers can take specific steps to provide alearning environment that will promote the motivation of all students. Ei

5746

MOTIVATION AND MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDENTS

ReferencesAmes, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation.

Journal of Educational Psychology, 84 (3), 261-271.

Ames, C., & Archer, J. (1988). Achievement goals in the classroom: Stu-dents' learning strategies and motivation processes. Journal of Educational Psy-chology, 80 (3), 260-267.

Anderman, E. M., & Maehr, M. L. (1994). Motivation and schooling in themiddle grades. Review of Educational Research, 64 (2), 287-309.



Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determina-

tion in human behavior. New York: Plenum.

Deci, E. L., Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G., & Ryan, R. M. (1991). Motiva-

tion and education: The self-determination perspective. Educational Psychologist,

26 (3 & 4), 325-346.

Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to moti-

vation and personality. Psychological Review, 95 (2), 256-273.

Eccles, J. S., & Midgley, C. (1989). Stage/environment fit: Developmentally

appropriate classrooms for early adolescents. In R. E. Ames & C. Ames (Eds.),Research on motivation in education (Vol. 3, pp. 139-186). New York: Academic.

Graham, S. (1990). Communicating low ability in the classroom: Bad things

good teachers sometimes do. In S. Graham and V. Folkes (Eds.), Attribution theory:

Applications to achievement, mental health, and interpersonal conflict .(pp. 17 -36). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Graham, S., & Barker, G. (1990). The downside of help: An attributional-developmental analysis of helping behavior as a low ability cue. Journal of Educa-

tional Psychology, 82 (1), 7-14.

Maehr, M. L., & Midgley, C. (1991). Enhancing student motivation: Aschoolwide approach. Educational Psychologist, 26 (3 & 4), 399-427.

Midgley, C. (1993). Motivation and middle level schools. In P. R. Pintrich &

M. L. Maehr (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement, Vol. 8: Motivation

in the adolescent years (pp. 219- 276). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Midgley, C., & Feldlaufer, H. (1987). Students' and teachers' decision-mak-

ing fit before and after the transition to junior high school. Journal of Early Ado-lescence, 7 (2), 225-241.

Midgley, C., & Urdan, T. C. (1992). The transition to middle level schools:

Making it a good experience for all students. Middle School Journal, 24 (2) 5-14.

Nicholls, J. G. (1989). The competitive ethos and democratic education.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

47 5 3


Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. H. (1996). Motivation in education: Theory,research, and applications. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Ryan, A. M., Hicks, L., & Midgley, C. (1997). Social goals, academic goals,

and avoiding seeking help in the classroom. Journal of Early Adolescence, 17 (2),

152-171.

Stipek, D. J. (1988). Motivation to learn: From theory to practice. 2nd ed.Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation andemotion. Psychological Review, 92 (4) 548-573.

Weiner, B. (1986). An attributional theory of motivation and emotion. New

York: Springer-Verlag.

5 9 48

Joanne M. Arhar

The Effects of InterdisciplinaryTeaming on Teachers and Students

Reflecting the admonitions of John Dewey that "The school mustitself be a community life" (Dewey, 1966, P. 358), middle schoolreformers advocate interdisciplinary teaming to create a "small

community of learning" (Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development,1989). Most middle level educators consider interdisciplinary team organi-zation, in which teachers share students, space and schedule, an essentialcomponent in meeting the needs of young adolescents. According to a 1993survey, 85% of the schools that have implemented the major componentsof the middle school believe teaming has contributed to the long-term ef-fectiveness of their program (George & Shewey, 1994, p. 80).

In this review of literature, I will briefly examine the history, design,and incidence of interdisciplinary teams. I will then examine the effects ofinterdisciplinary teaming on teacher and student outcomes. Interdiscipli-nary teaming, as an organizational feature of middle schools, involves ar-eas such as how authority is organized, how the work of teachers and stu-dents is organized, and how the social relations are structured. These rela-tionships have an effect on teacher and student outcomes. Two strands ofresearch on teacher professionalism and student learning help definethe outcomes of this review.

History of interdisciplinary teamingInterdisciplinary teaming is not a recent innovation. Its historical roots

lie, in part, in the Pontoon Transitional Design of the early 1960s that in-volved teacher autonomy in the decision-making process, flexible sched-uling using large blocks of time, correlated subject matter, common plan-

496 0


ning time, and teacher collaboration (Clark & Clark, 1992). Early researchon this comprehensive model of teaming showed students scoring higheron such achievement measures as math, reading, and social studies tests.Unfortunately, most systematic research on teaming was sporadic duringthe next two decades, and the topic did not reappear until the first reviewsof teaming as a structural arrangement were published in Middle SchoolJournal (Arhar, Johnston & Markle, 1988; Arhar, Johnston & Markle, 1989).

1:1 Design and incidence of interdisciplinary teamingInterdisciplinary team organization is "a way of organizing the fac-

ulty so that a group of teachers share: (1) the same group of students; (2)the responsibility for planning, teaching, and evaluating curriculum andinstruction in more than one academic area; (3) the same schedule; and (4)the same area of the building" (George & Alexander, 1993, p. 249). Fourlarge scale surveys have examined the incidence of teaming in middle-level schools (Alexander & McEwin, 1989; Epstein & Mac Iver, 1990;McEwin, Dickinson, & Jenkins,1996; Valentine, Clark, Irvin, Keefe &Melton, 1993). Teaming has increased from 33% (1989) to 42V(1990) to57% (1992). The greatest percentage of teams are found in schools with a6-7-8 grade configuration (66%), while the smallest percentage of teamsare found in the 7-8-9 grade configuration (40%). Sixth grade has the greatestpercentage of teams (55%), whereas the ninth grade has the fewest teams(9%).

Results of the 1992 study and the other national surveys indicate thatthe use of common planning time and individual planning time has alsoincreased in the past years indicating an increased commitment to teaming.In addition it was found that most students in teamed schools were groupedheterogeneously indicating a commitment to equity and opportunity for allstudents. The subjects most commonly taught within teams are math, sci-ence, social studies language arts, and reading. These surveys have added agreat deal to our awareness of the commitment schools are making to this"signature" middle school practice.

1:1 Outcomes for teachersSeveral recent studies add empirical support for the benefits of col-

laborative work for teacher professionalism, particularly in terms of satis-faction, efficacy, and commitment. McLaughlin's study of eight high schools(1993) portrayed professional communities of teachers as cohesive, colle-gial environments in which "teachers report a high level of innovativeness,high levels of energy and enthusiasm ...support for personal growth and

50

THE EFFECTS OF INTERDISCIPLINARY TEAMING ON TEACHERS AND STUDENTS

learning...[and a] high level of commitment to teaching and to all of thestudents with whom they work" (p. 94). This portrait is similar to reportsby Lee, Dedrick, and Smith (1991) and Raudenbush, Rowan, and Cheong(1992) who found that collaboration among high school teachers was posi-tively related to teachers' feelings of efficacy and satisfaction.

Several studies conducted in middle schools add support to the beliefthat interdisciplinary teaming has the potential to enhance teacher profes-sionalism. Mills, Powell, and Pollack (1992) investigated three teams in ajunior high school. In their qualitative investigation, they describe how thepersonal isolation so characteristic of teachers' school lives is diminishedwithin months after teams are formed. Gatewood, Cline, Green, and Harris(1992) found that teaming enhanced teachers' personal sense of profes-sionalism. Husband and Short (1994) found that interdisciplinary teammembers felt significantly more empowered in all six factors under inves-tigation (decision making, professional growth, status, self-efficacy, au-tonomy, and impact) than departmentally organized teachers. These stud-ies in middle level schools indicate the importance of this organizationalarrangement for enhancing the appeal of teaching as a profession.

In another study of restructuring in four middle schools, teachers re-ported that teaming undermined faculty ability to deal with issues relatedto the whole school. The dilemmas that interfered include: time conflictsbetween team or whole-school issues; increased involvement with theirgroup of students; limited time for peer observation; competition betweenteams; and the tendency within teams to compromise rather than risk seri-ous disagreement leading important issues to be diluted. These dilemmasdetracted from the development of a school-wide professional community(Kruse & Louis, 1995).

The positive outcomes of teaming will not occur by simply placingteachers together on teams. These outcomes are the result of preparing andsupporting teachers through this process of change. Team processes are thesubject of another review in this volume.

Ci Outcomes for studentsThe positive outcomes of collaboration for students include increased

engagement in academic and school-related work, achievement, studentattendance and behavior, and student belonging. While there are difficul-ties associated with team work, the increased feelings of efficacy and pro-fessional satisfaction that accompany well-structured collaboration haspayoff for students. Ashton & Webb (1986) and Rosenholtz (1989) foundthat efficacy and satisfaction for teachers is associated with increased stu-

51

6 2


dent achievement. Using a subsample of the NELS :88 data, Lee and Smith(1993) found that students in restructured middle level schools (less de-partmentalization, more heterogeneous grouping, more team teaching, anda composite index of other restructuring factors) scored significantly higheron achievement and engagement than students in non-restructured schools.Restructuring also equalized achievement and engagement among studentsof differing social backgrounds. These positive results were small, but sta-tistically significant. Although this study does not isolate the impact ofinterdisciplinary teaming on student achievement and engagement, it por-trays teaming as part of a larger and more complex realm of restructuring,a realm that is difficult to separate out into components parts. As reportedin a review of literature on the effects of teaming on students (Arhar,Johnston, & Markle, 1989), teachers ' collaboration is also associated inmore direct ways with reduced disciplinary problems, increased studentengagement in academic tasks, and clarification of learning goals. Theseoutcomes are important in themselves, but they also act as mediating vari-ables interacting with students in ways to enhance their academic learning.

The role of teaming in reducing student alienation is the subject of aseries of studies. In a study of fourteen alternative high schools for studentswho were not succeeding M regular schools, Wehlage, Rutter, Smith, Lesko,and Fernandez (1989) found that the school-within-a school was an inno-vation that allowed teachers the flexibility, autonomy, and control that theyneeded to succeed with these students. They found that this structural ar-rangement enabled the kinds of relationships between teachers and stu-dents that encouraged both school membership and academic engagementfor students as well as a supportive and collegial culture for teachers.

In Arhar's (1992, 1994) study of the relationship between studentbelonging and interdisciplinary teaming, 5000 students in teamed and non-teamed schools were compared on belonging to peers, teachers, and school.Students in teamed schools scored higher on belonging to teachers and toschool than their non-teamed counterparts. There was no significant differ-ence in scores of teamed and non-teamed students on bonding to peers.

In a follow-up study, Arhar and Kromrey (1995) divided the schoolsfrom the 1992 study into high-income pairs (teamed and non-teamed schoolsmatched on a variety of variables) and low-income pairs (teamed and non-teamed). There was no significant difference between the belonging scoresof students in teamed and non-teamed high-income schools. However, therewas a significant difference between belonging to teacher scores in teamedand non-teamed schools that were categorized as low income schools. Therewas also a significant difference between belonging to peer scores in teamed

6 3 52


and non-teamed low-income schools. These findings suggest that interdis-ciplinary teaming has the potential to create a sense of belonging for stu-dents who come from communities that do not provide the kind of socialand economic support found in more affluent areas.

McPartland (1987) found that increased departmentalization has anegative effect on teacher-student relations, particularly for low-incomestudents. He suggested that interdisciplinary teaming may partially ame-liorate the negative effects of departmentalization on student-teacher rela-tions while preserving the academic benefits of working with teachers whohave specialized content expertise.

Bradock and McPartland's (1993) review of the literature on school-ing and early adolescence offer an explanation for the importance of a car-ing climate and supportive school structures for disadvantaged youth. Dis-advantaged youth are often found in lower tracks and in larger departmen-talized schools in which teachers have daily contact with large numbers ofstudents. In such schools, students have a difficult time finding the kind ofenvironment that they need in order to be successful in their academic work.Teaming, with its possibility for flexibility (multi-age, time, space, etc.),autonomy, and personal advising, has the potential to decrease the feelingsof alienation experienced by so many students.

Increased achievement, engagement, and belonging and decreasedincidence of behavioral problems do not always occur when teaming isimplemented. Wehlage, Smith, and Lipman (1992) reported that restruc-turing interventions that included teaming in urban middle schools were"supplemental" at best, leaving basic curricular and instructional practices,as well as relationships with students unchanged. Conditions which fosterpositive outcomes for students are the subject of a review on team pro-cesses.

LI Summary and conclusionAlthough current studies do not report a relationship between team-

ing and student dropout rates, a recent study of middle school dropouts(Rumberger, 1995) reports that high absenteeism, misbehavior, and pooracademic performance are predictive of middle school students droppingout of school. Teaming, with its potential to minimize student social be-havior problems and increase achievement though positive relationshipsand teacher professionalism, may have an indirect effect on the number ofstudents who drop out.

The search for a positive relationship between interdisciplinary team-ing and student achievement continues. The longitudinal study of levels of

53

6 4


implementation of reform elements conducted by Felner, Jackson, Kasak,Mulhall, Brand, and Flowers (1997) suggests that higher levels of imple-mentation are associated with increased achievement, fewer behavior prob-lems, and student adjustment to school, particularly for "at-risk" students.While these outcomes are important, social elements of team communitiessuch as the ability to care for one another, depend on one another, and shareresponsibility for problem solving and learning are also important ends inthemselves. These social elements are much more than mechanisms to bemanipulated for accomplishing academic aims they are the valued endsof a middle school education. E

ReferencesAlexander, W. M., & McEwin, C. K. (1989). Schools in the middle: Status

and progress. Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association.

Arhar, J. M. (1992). Interdisciplinary teaming and the social bonding ofmiddle level students. In J. Irvin (Ed.), Transforming middle level education: Per-

spectives and possibilities (pp. 139-161). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Arhar, J. M. (1994). Personalizing the social organization of middle-levelschools: Does interdisciplinary teaming make a difference? In K. M. Borman and

N. P. Greenman (Eds.), Changing America education: Recapturing the past orinventing the future? (pp. 325-350) Albany NY: SUNY.

Arhar, J. M., & Kromrey, J. (1995). Interdisciplinary teaming and the demo-

graphics of membership: A comparison of student belonging in high SES and low

SES middle-level schools. Research in Middle Level Education, 18 (2), 71-88.

Arhar, J. M., Johnston, J. H., & Markle, G. C. (1988). The effects of teaming

and other collaborative arrangements. Middle School Journal, 19 (4), 22-25.Arhar, J. M., Johnston, J. H., & Markle, G. C. (1989). The effects of teaming

on students. Middle School Journal, 20 (3), 21-27.Ashton P. T., & Webb, R.B. (1986). Making a difference: Teachers' sense of

efficacy and student achievement. New York: Longman.

Bradock J. H., & McPartland, J. M. (1993). Education of early adolescents.

In L. Darling-Hammond (Ed.), Review of Research in Education, 19, (pp.135-170). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.



Clark, S. N., & Clark, D. C. (1992). The pontoon transitional design: A miss-

ing link in research on interdisciplinary teaming. Research in Middle Level Educa-

tion, 15 (2), 57-81.

Dewey, J. (1966). Democracy and education. New York: Macmillan.


54

6 5


Felner, R.D., Jackson, A.W., Kasak, D., Mulhall, P., Brand, S., & Flowers,N. (1997). The impact of school reform for the middle years. Phi Delta Kappan,78 (7) 528-549.

Gatewood, T.E., Cline, G., Green, G., & Harris, S.E. (1992). The middleschool interdisciplinary team organization and its relationship to teacher stress.Research in Middle Level Education, 15 (2), (27-40)

George P. S., & Alexander, W. M. (1993). The exemplary middle school (2nd

Edition). New York: Holt, Reinhart and Winston, Inc.

George, P. S., & Shewey, K. (1994). New evidence for the middle school.Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association.

Husband, R. E., & Short, P. M. (1994). Interdisciplinary teams lead to greater

teacher empowerment. Middle School Journal, 26 (2), 58-60.Johnston, J. H., Markle, G. C., & Arhar, J. M. (1988). Cooperation, collabo-

ration, and the professional development of teachers. Middle School Journal, 19

(3), 28-32.

Kruse, S., & Louis, K. S. (1995). Teacher teamingopportunities and di-lemmas. Brief to principals. (Brief No.11). Madison, WI: Center on Organizationand Restructuring of Schools.

Lee, V. E., Dedrick, R. F., & Smith, J. B. (1991). The effects of the socialorganization of schools on teachers' efficacy and satisfaction. Sociology of Educa-

tion, 64 (3), 190-208.

Lee V., & Smith, J. (1993). Effects of school restructuring on the achieve-ment and engagement of middle-grades students. Sociology of Education, 66,(3) 164-187.

McLaughlin, M. W. (1993). What matters most in teachers' workplace con-

text? In J. W. Little & M. W. McLaughlin (Eds.), Teachers' work (pp. 79-103).New York: Teachers College Press.

McPartland, J. M. (1987). Balancing high quality subject matter instructionwith positive teacher-student relations in the middle grades. Baltimore, MD: Johns

Hopkins University Center of Research on Elementary and Middle Schools.

Mills, R.A., Powell, R.R., & Pollack, J.P. (1992). The influence of interdis-

ciplinary teaming on teacher isolation: A case study. Research in Middle LevelEducation, 15 (2), 9-26.

Raudenbush, S. W., Rowan, B., & Cheon, Y. F. (1992). Contextual effects of

the self-perceived efficacy of high school teachers. Sociology of Education, 65,(2), 150-167.

Rosenholtz, S. (1989). Teacher' s workplace: The social organization ofschools. New York: Longman.

6 655

Rumberger, R. W. (1995). Dropping out of middle school: A multilevel analy-

sis of students and schools. American Educational Research Journal, 32 (3), 583-

625.


Leadership in middle level education Volume 1: A national survey of middle level

leaders and schools. Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Prin-cipals.

Wehlage, G. G., Rutter, R. A., Smith, G. A., Lesko, N., & Fernandez, R. R.

(1989). Reducing the risk: Schools as communities of support. New York: Falmer.

Wehlage, G. G., Smith, G. A., & Lipman, P. (1992). Restructuring urbanschools: The New Futures experience. American Educational Research Journal,29 (1), 51-93.

6 7

RRRI KRKR RRR,

R

RR RR,

H. James McLaughlin and Nancy M. Doda

Teaching with Time on Your Side:Developing Long-Term Relationshipsin Schools

Alas, I have finally arrived at a place of comfortwith my students and now I must bid them farewell.

This middle school teacher's comment reflects the sentiments of manywho recognize that by the close of a school year strong classroomrelationships and in many cases productive work patterns have

evolved. Few would deny that time can offer amazing dividends in a teach-ing-learning context.

In spite of the fact that nearly all teachers readily acknowledge thehard-won gifts of a year's time with young adolescents, most middle schoolsmarch on in the tradition of grouping children by grade or age and movingthem on with each passing year to start the process all over again. In ex-change for the novelty each new school year brings, teachers and childrenmust wipe the slate clean and begin anew with the challenge of cultivatingthe best context for learning often the one they left behind.

The multiyear classroom has a long and illustrious history in Ameri-can education. As late as 1918, there were close to 200,000 one-room schoolsin the United States, which accounted for 71% of all public schools (Miller,1990). It can be gathered from stories told and research conducted thatthese schools, in which children of different ages learned together for manyyears, were small, familiar, communal settings. Students were known ex-ceedingly well, and continuous and individual progress was more readilymanaged. Families were directly involved in children's schooling. Teach-ers could not easily give up on even the most challenging child, knowingthat with each passing day there were years to follow. Whatever the school's

57 6 8

WHAT RESEARCH SAYS

shortcomings, there was a sense of community that can only be developedthrough continuous years of living out days together (Fogarty, 1993). Theseattributes constitute some of the same reasons stated by proponents of mod-ern versions of multiyear teaching.

There is no question, however, that the appeal of the one-room schoolremains fantasy, given the financial and human limitations of having oneteacher under one roof with multiaged learners. Currently, fewer than 1,000one-room schools remain in the United States. The promise of multiyeararrangements, however, is not fantasy at all. Many elementary schools to-day use multiage and multiyear classroom formats. Rural communities andvillages depend on such groupings to manage small school populations.Likewise, increasing numbers of elementary and middle level schools haveembraced the alternatives to traditional grouping by single ages and singleyears, and it is encouraging to note that the support for such a change isfound in a rich history of practice and research.

ID Why We Need Long-Term Relationships 1:1in Middle Schools

More than curiosity or nostalgia brings middle school practitioners intoconversations about multiyear grouping. One original rationale emergedwhen Eichhorn (1966) documented the absence of any correlation betweengrade level and student development during early adolescence. That vari-ability remains, and it is compounded by the staggering diversity of thechildren we serve now. Such diversity has led some to reexamine the as-sumptions from which we group and teach children. What purposes dograde levels serve? Is the single year the optimal amount of time for theteaching-learning process? What grouping best serves the needs of our chil-dren preparing for today's society?

While Eichhorn's rationale piqued some interest, today's middle schooleducators are intrigued for additional reasons. One of the numerous changesin family life is that young adolescents spend less time outside of schoolwith adults, and their social environment is often unstable (Scales, 1991).Scales asserted that the number one concern for educators in the 1990s is:"How can we ensure that young adolescents establish reliable and caringattachments, particularly with adults?" (p. 42) Scales goes on to say that toestablish stronger attachments, schools for young adolescents must be placesin which there is "informality, flexibility, and intimacy" (pp. 8-9).

58

6 9

TEACHING WITH TIME ON YOUR SIDE

Citizens and educators alike express a growing concern for the pres-ervation of democracy and an accompanying demand for improved coop-erative citizenship. Some see multiyear grouping as a way to create schoolsettings in which children are encouraged by adults to participate in com-munity life and to develop cooperative social skills and attitudes. Youngadolescents need to experience community, and they need to participate inmentoring and cross-age relationships (Scales, 1991).

Educators are also concerned that it is increasingly difficult to reachdisaffected students in the confines of a single year's time, and they areeager to examine ways to salvage time in the teaching-learning equation.Teachers worry that today's young adolescents are increasingly vulnerableto declining self-esteem. Students' motivation, their self-concept related totheir abilities, and their attitudes toward school decrease as they move from6th to 8th grades (see Anderman & Maehr, 1995, and the work of Eccles,Wigfield, Midgley, Reuman, Mac Iver, & Feldlaufer, 1993 for the negativeeffects of traditional middle level schools.) According to Beane and Lipka(1986), the cultivation of a humanistic (relationship-centered) rather than acustodial (control-centered) climate is critical to the self-esteem of youngadolescents. When teachers and students spend repeated years together, itis reasonable to believe that a humanistic climate can be achieved and thatpositive relationships would reduce the need for control-centered teaching.

In light of diminished adult support and an accompanying decline instudents' positive attitudes toward school, it is no surprise that problemsassociated with retention and dropping out have come to the forefront. Re-cently, Roderick (1994) reviewed the research on retention of students andrelated it to dropout rates. She called for "promotion with remediation" (p.749) and offered alternatives to retaining students in the elementary andmiddle grades. One alternative that Roderick did not consider is multiyeargrouping, because long-term relationships are essential if we are to engagestruggling students who are otherwise passed along with little accountabil-ity or retained with little hope of gaining ground.

Finally, as practices like interdisciplinary teaming, curriculum inte-gration, heterogeneous grouping, special education inclusion, cooperativelearning, and alternative assessment have found their way into the middleschool, practitioners have been more prone to explore experimental group-ing arrangements that resist separating, labeling, and sorting children bypredefined descriptors. All of these and other issues have coaxed manymiddle school educators into examining alternatives to single-grade andsingle-year grouping.

59 7 0

WHAT RESEARCH SAYS

la Four Ways to Develop Long-Term Relationships 1:1

Educators have tried to strengthen the long-term bonds between familiesand schools in four ways. Perhaps the most well known is that of the mixed-age classroom, a modern day analog of the traditional one-room school.Before continuing, a clarification of terminology may be helpful. Veenman(1995) used the word multigraded to mean a grouping of multiple age stu-dents that is created out of convenience or necessity (such as combining 6third-graders with 15 fourth-graders to stay within mandated class sizes).The strategy of combining students from several grade levels has oftenbeen used in small villages, rural communities, or developing nations tomanage small numbers of students or shifting school enrollments (Veenman,1995). In the U. S., this arrangement is most common in elementary schoolsthat have self-contained classes; middle grades students are rarely com-bined in this manner.

Multiage is a term commonly used today to connote mixed-age groups.In most cases where this term is applied to the grouping pattern, it is drivenby pedagogical rather than economic reasons. During the 1960s and 1970sin the United Kingdom, during the heyday of the British infant schools,mixed-age grouping was known as "vertical" or "family" grouping. Multiagediffers slightly from ungraded or nongraded grouping (primarily an elemen-tary school idea) which does not differentiate between different grade lev-els and allows for students' continuous progress through the curriculum.Unlike the historic one-room schools, multiage classrooms rarely include*students from more than three grades. In this chapter we address the valueof intentional multiage and multiyear grouping, and we prefer Miller's(1996) simple definition of the term: "I use multiage to mean two or moregrade levels that have been intentionally blended together to improve learn-ing" (p. 12).

Whether it is instituted for administrative or pedagogical reasons,multigrade and multiage grouping enable interaction across age groups andmay involve a long-term relationship among students and teachers. In amultiyear program of this sort, children in different grade levels learn side-by-side and the oldest children move on at the close of their stay, to bereplaced by a new group of younger students each year. For example, in asixth, seventh, and eighth grade multiage team, as eighth graders completetheir three-year residency, new incoming sixth graders take their place.Some programs have arranged for a multiage class in only one subject. Inthis plan, students are grouped and regrouped in specific subjects by needs

60


rather than grade, thus providing enormous flexibility for grouping andregrouping that would otherwise not be available.

Though not dramatically different from multiage grouping, develop-mental age grouping is another arrangement of several grade level groupsthat are combined according to developmental growth indicators. Based onthe work of Eichhorn (1966), this plan works to create communities in amiddle school that share common developmental needs and concerns in amixed age setting. Spring Hill Middle School, in Spring Hill, Florida wasoriginally designed for developmental age grouping. The plan organizedstudents into three learning units or communities. Unit I housed the fifthgraders and the developmentally younger sixth graders. Unit II housed theolder sixth graders and younger seventh graders. Finally, Unit III housedthe older seventh graders and eighth graders. This plan functioned so thateach child spent a period of two years with the same group of teachers andwith one-half of the same student group.

In more recent years, schools have experimented with a concept inwhich students from a single grade-level group stay intact and remain withtheir class or team of teachers for several consecutive years. In this ar-rangement, students do not experience instruction in mixed-age groups.Rather; the focus is on the long-term relationships facilitated by a continu-ous, year-to-year instructional plan. This arrangement has a long history. Itwas described as "teacher rotation" in a Department of Interior randommemo from 1913. In the 1970s, Paul George and educators at Lincoln MiddleSchool in Gainesville, Florida, wrote a monograph published by NationalMiddle School Association (1987) describing this approach as "student-teacher progression." More recently, writers have referred to this organiza-tional plan as "looping," a term that probably originated in the United King-dom or Canada. The idea is international in scope. Koln-Holweide Com-prehensive School is the most famous of several schools in Germany thathave used looping for the last 20 years (Ratzki, 1988). While there is verylittle research on looping, practitioners claim it reduces wasted time at thestart of each year, increases stability and routine, facilitates the member-ship of reticent students, and enhances classroom cooperation.

A fourth approach entails grouping teams of students together for sev-eral years to create a "school-within-a-school." This approach has also beenreferred to as the "house plan" or the "community" system. The studentsare not necessarily in multiage groups and they may not stay with exactlythe same cohort for years. This structure has often been used in large highschools, though it is also seen in middle schools. For example, within aschool comprised of 2,000 students, grades 6-8, there might be six "com-

61

WHAT RESEARCH SAYS

munities" located in different areas of the school facility. Each communitycould incorporate one 6th, one 7th, and one 8th grade team with an entirecommunity population of over 300 students. In some schools, students wouldthen stay within that community from 6th to 8th grades, though their teach-ers might change from year to year (see Oxley, 1989).

Li What We Know From Research ID

While the the pedagogy and practices are intriguing, how worthy are they?Many possible benefits of establishing long-term relationships exist in schoolcommunities, but the research on different approaches is spotty. We knowof no full-scale reviews on looping, developmental age grouping, or schools-within-a-school. The majority of the research on multiage/multigrade class-rooms has been at the elementary level, but many of the studies to datehave included grades which serve young adolescents, and the research isvaried and illuminating. To simplify, we have synthesized findings by largeissues of concern, drawing mainly from four comprehensive reviews ofresearch conducted by Miller (1990; 1991), Pavan (1992), Gutiérrez andSlavin (1992), and Veenman (1995). When examined collectively, thesereviews provide a rich picture of what is known about multigrade, multiage,and multiyear grouping.

Miller (1990, 1991) summarized the findings of quantitative and quali-tative research studies on multiage grouping. Miller's reviews featured datafrom rural schools, and he contributed to our understanding by trying toexamine qualitative data, something that few reviewers have attempted.Gutiérrez and Slavin (1992) helped us to differentiate among "Joplin-like"grouping, in which students are grouped across ages only for reading; "com-prehensive" grouping that mixes the ages for most or all classes, but useswhole-class and small-group instruction; and "individualized" grouping inwhich students primarily work alone. Pavan (1992) asserted the impor-tance of considering "nongradedness" or "multiage" not merely as a struc-ture, but as a set of instructional practices such as cooperative learning andpeer tutoring. Veenman (1995) distinguished between "multigrade" and"multiage" groups, as noted earlier, and incorporated international studiesin his review.

CI AchievementIn all four reviews, the majority of studies point to the largely neutral

and occasionally positive effects of multiage and multigraded grouping on

7-3 62


achievement. Children in nongraded classrooms fare as well or better thanchildren in single-graded classrooms on standardized measures of achieve-ment (Gutiérrez & Slavin, 1992; Miller, 1990; Pavan, 1992). According toPavan's review (1992), 91% of the 57 reviewed U. S. and Canadian studiesrevealed that students in nongraded settings did as well as or outperformedstudents in graded classes. Since many have challenged the viability ofmixed-age teaching in terms of curriculum mastery, Pavan's observationthat students in nongraded programs perforfned as well as or better on stan-dardized achievement tests is noteworthy. In Miller's review (1990), stu-dents in multiaged settings outperformed their graded counterparts on read-ing, but did not do as well as graded students on mathematics.

Since a grouping arrangement alone may not be sufficient to make animpact on achievement, what Gutiérrez and Slavin (1992) found in their"best evidence synthesis" of research makes sense. They reported that " theeffects of nongraded programs depend on the types of programs being imple-mented" (p. 366). Only two types of nongraded programs seemed to showsignificant achievement gains when compared with graded programs:

1. "Joplin-like programs, in which students are grouped across age linesin just one subject, usually reading;

2. Programs that utilize cross-age grouping in many subjects but do notrely on individualized instruction at the expense of more comprehen-sive approaches to instruction, including cooperative and teacher-ledmethods" (p. 368).When teachers employed comprehensive instructional methods, no

study supported the single graded group (p. 352). Moreover, once again,language and reading showed the most positive gains, with mixed resultsin mathematics. This success in the language areas is not surprising, sincelanguage acquisition is enhanced by a rich and diverse context of expo-sure. Conducting the most comprehensively international review to date,Veenman (1995) reviewed 56 studies, 37 of them U. S. or Canadian and theremainder from various international sites. Veenman's review examinedthe cognitive and noncognitive effects of multigrade and multiage class-rooms. Veenman concluded that the effects on achievement were neutral.

In nearly all cases where single-grade students outperformed mixed-grade students, the achievement gains appeared related to factors other thanthe grouping. Although differences between two schools were not consid-ered when comparing achievement results in two U. S. middle schools,Marsh (1980) found her single-grade students did better on measures ofachievement. In a study of multigraded versus graded schools in West Ger-many, Fippinger (1967) found that students ios,iTgle-grade classes outper-

63

WHAT RESEARCH SAYS

formed their multigrade counterparts. The difference appeared to be re-lated to the fact that students in the graded schools were from markedlyhigher socioeconomic levels than students in the nongraded schools. Innumerous other U.S. cases, the superiority of graded students' achieve-ment was connected with parents' self-selection .or location (suburban vs.rural) and the consequent social class and ability issues that such differ-ences can create (Miller, 1990; Veenman, 1995). Moreover, several of thesestudies were conducted in situations that deliberately placed highly suc-cessful students in the single-graded contexts.

In reviewing these findings, it is important to recall that none of thestudies actually controlled for teaching practice, so it is difficult to know towhat extent differences in instruction played a role. As one researcher specu-lated, where single grade classes outperformed mixed-grade classes, therewere enormous differences in teacher preparation, with far more extensivetraining provided for the teachers who were to teach grade level classes(Rowley, 1992).

CI Affective and social outcomesWhile the jury is out with regard to the relationship between multiage

and multigrade grouping and achievement, the picture is clearer for affec-tive outcomes. As Miller (1989) asserted at the close of his review:

"These studies indicate that being a student in a multigraded class-room does not negatively affect academic performance nor student socialrelationships and attitudes. . . When it comes to student affect, the case formultigrade organizations appears much stronger, with multigrade studentsoutperforming single-grade students in over 75 percent of the measuresused" (p. 13).

Although it is not one of the primary reviews included here, one ofthe more provocative reviews was written by Pratt (1986). From his reviewof experimental studies, Pratt could make no conclusions about achieve-ment. He did claim, however, that students' self-concepts were strength-ened by multiage arrangements. After analyzing pertinent anthropologicalstudies, he also concluded that multiage classrooms are "socially and psy-chologically healthy places" because they promote "children's friendships"and provide extended contact with adults and peers of varying ages" (p.114). He further stated that one vital aspect of multiage grouping's effectswas the availability of cross-age tutoring, which may be correlated withhigher academic achievement and enhanced self-esteem for both the tutorand the tutee.

64


Pavan (1992) reached similar conclusions regarding student affect.She noted that students in multigraded schools scored higher than gradedschool students on the Coopersmith Self-Esteem Inventory and Piers-Har-ris Children's Self-Concept Scale. In addition to improved self-esteem, stu-dents in nongraded schools had superior attitudes towards self and school.One would expect this increase in attitude would translate into improveddiscipline and in one study it did. Students in that study spent five years ina nongraded junior high/middle school setting and significantly fewer stu-dents were referred for discipline procedures. Moreover, in that study un-derachievers from nongraded schools had better self-concepts, attitudestowards school, and academic achievement than underachievers in gradedschools (Pavan, 1992).

With young adolescents, issues of peer relationships could have animpact on the outcomes of any initiative. In a study of the effect of grade-level status on student perceptions about their interactions in cross-age pairsin a combined third and fifth grade classroom, Young and Boyle (1994)uncovered what they called the "Lady Bountiful Syndrome." Based on ananalysis of interviews, results showed that fifth graders perceived the thirdgraders as incapable and did things for the third graders rather than helpingthem learn to work independently. In cross-age situations where such sta-tus/ knowledge perceptions are at work, Young and Boyle concluded thatpeer interactions could interfere with the learning process. Also addressingpeer interactions, a case study of cross-race friendships in two racially di-verse graded and multigraded schools showed encouraging results favor-ing the multigraded school (D'Amico & Bell-Nathaniel, 1981).

Another intriguing study (Smith, 1993) focused on student attitudestowards multiage classrooms based on gender and grade level in twomultiage classrooms (grades 3-4 and 5-6). Results showed no significantdifference based on gender, but students in the two upper grades had morenegative attitudes towards multiage grouping than did the younger studentsin each class. It is not clear from the study whether this practice was re-cently instituted and thus would have been new to the fourth and sixthgrade youngsters. If that were the case, the negative attitudes seem under-standable. Where grade level carries status, older students new to multiagegrouping might feel demoted. On the other hand, French, Waas, Stright,and Baker (1986) noted that in a multiyear structure, more students had theopportunity to be leaders including older students who otherwise might nothave assumed leadership positions.

While there are very few studies of looping, the results of those fewthat have been concluded are quite positive. George (1987) indicated that

65,7 6

WHAT RESEARCH SAYS

teachers and students saw many benefits in staying together. Mize Ile (1993)described the Delta Project, an interdisciplinary team of four teachers whofollowed a group of students for three consecutive years. During the twoyears when the study was conducted, students' self-esteem and attitudestowards school improved. Mize Ile described how looping offered students:(1) opportunities for working in groups that accept diversity; (2) opportu-nities for personally significant learning experiences; (3) opportunities forself-evaluation; and (4) opportunities to view mistakes as a normal part ofthe learning process. In addition, Pate, Mize lle, Hart, Jordan, Matthews,Matthews, Scott, and Brantley (1993) asserted that looping enhanced stu-dent collaboration, enabled long-term curricular projects to flourish, and"created a positive working and learning environment for both teachersand students" (p. 27).

ID Limitations of the researchWe have already made the point obliquely, but will state it more clearly:

there is a startling lack of research evidence mustered on behalf of multiagegrouping, looping, and schools-within-a-school in American middle schools.Quite a bit of research exists on multiage grouping in elementary schoolsand some research on schools-within-a-school in high schools. We can findalmost no substantive research on looping at any grade level, though thereare a growing number of descriptions of practice. What is more, even theresearch that has been conducted often fails to track students and teachersover two or more years; most of the studies are one-year snapshots that failto capture the complexity of rmiltiyear learning. For all the talk and anec-dotal evidence about these grouping ideas, in the coming years we mustconduct much more substantive research about the benefits of multiyearteaming and learning. Educational relationships are based in part on theparticipants' perceptions of students' educational success. If teachers, par-ents, and students cannot be shown that looping and multiage teaching ar-rangements yield positive affective and cognitive gains, then multiyeargrouping may not last.

LJ What Hinders or FacilitatesLong-Term Educational Relationships?

Zi Instructional issuesWhile research on specific outcomes is essential to program deci-

sion-making, practitioners are often most concerned with the implementa-

66'77


tion. As one interested teacher put it, "Sounds wonderful, but would itwork?" Fortunately, we have many credible reports that describe what hin-ders and facilitates new grouping arrangements.

Miller's (1991) qualitative review focused on how teachers and ad-ministrators view the job of working in multiage situations and how in-struction is carried out. Most teachers believed that teaching in a multiageclassroom was more difficult than teaching in a graded classroom, and thatit required special preparation. In particular, teachers highlighted individu-alizing instruction, unit planning, classroom organization, and curriculumdevelopment as the most challenging tasks that must be performed well ina multiage teaching situation. Anderson and Pavan (1993) and Gutiérrezand Slavin (1994) asserted that students should be engaged in learning fromone another, they should be regrouped for instruction within and across ageor grade levels, and any cross-age grouping should be flexible. Veenman(1995) believed that frequent assessment of mastery, increased amounts ofteaching time for homogeneous instructional groups, and the organizationof subject areas by levels (not age groups) are also important features (p.373). All of these authors offer vital ideas for teachers and administratorsto consider.

Different approaches may have different problems of implementa-tion. For some teachers, looping may be less intimidating than multiageteaching. With looping, teachers can maintain a grade-level approach tocurriculum as they follow students from year to year. In addition, someparents may be uncomfortable with the notion of eighth graders and sixthgraders in one room and many teachers worry that they will be spread toothin with the diverse demands of various age and grade levels. Loopingdoes require that teachers adjust to new curricula for the first cycle of years,but they may do so with fewer struggles in the process.

All innovations in curriculum and instruction require leadership ifthey are to succeed. Miller (1996) emphasized the "common traits" of lead-ership in developing greater parent and teacher support for multiage group-ing. He proposed a set of key principles that enable multiage grouping towork. We believe his principles apply to any effort to establish long-termrelationships in schools.

1. Find research-based information and descriptive stories of practicebefore beginning planning.

2. No single model of practice will suffice.3. Change comes top-down and bottom-up, at the same time.4. Teachers must challenge their preconceived notions of student group-

ing and the most appropriate instructional strategies.

67 7 8

WHAT RESEARCH SAYS

5. "Strategic, incremental steps" are more important than "large leapsthat are not well thought out and articulated" (p. 17).

Li A matter of continuityA central feature of any multiyear grouping, whether it is looping or a

multiage team that stays together for more than one year, is that teachersdevelop a curriculum articulated across the years. This feature has greatpromise because it can provide for what Miller (1994) called "social andacademic continuity" (p. 94). This sort of curriculum articulation requiresthat teachers be provided additional time and resources for planning.

For teachers engaged in looping or multiage, multiyear teaming, theopportunity to know students and their families closely is of paramountimportance. Anne Bingham (1993) talked about the power of a "sharedhistory" (p. 77). Parents can come to know teachers better, in terms of theirexpectations, their teaching styles, and their ways of communicating. Par-ents also have a chance to participate in long-term projects over a period ofyears (Alioto, 1994). Varying types of family involvement are possible,and many benefits of a real "family-school-community partnership" exist(National Education Goals Report, 1996). Multiyear arrangements can helpsuch partnerships to flourish, but the school educators have to develop plansthat incorporate creative ideas about how to engage parents and families.

ID Final Reflections Li

In some respects these are desperate times. Increasing numbers of educa-tors express concern about the ever-emerging population of youngsters whoare more difficult to reach and teach. Embarrassing numbers of young ado-lescents in the United States do not fare well in school. Remedial and puni-tive measures have failed miserably. Many have a sense that one new inno-vation after the next has done little to change the foundation and fabric ofschool relationships upon which all teaching and learning is built. The Na-tional Education Goals Report (1996) described the progress or lack ofprogress in key educational areas over the last two years, and then calls fornew approaches to long-term assessment, the use of textbooks, the use ofthemes, and long-term projects. We believe that teachers constructing amultiyear curriculum have a greater chance to develop those approachesbecause they are able to develop social and academic continuity and toemphasize students' progress over time.

79. 68


Ways to facilitate stronger relationships in schools are many; we haveexamined only a few. From our perspective, and in light of the researchwe've shared, there is great promise in long-term teaching relationships.We must move from a reliance on short-term affection or control to a re-newal of long-term respect between young adolescents and adults. Withtime on our side, using creative grouping alternatives, we open a wholeworld of possibilities. E

ReferencesThe references are categorized according to whether they are indi-

vidual research studies about the three approaches, research summaries,descriptions of programs and practices, or miscellaneous books and ar-ticles.

Research StudiesAnderman, E. M., & Maehr, M. L. (1995). Motivation and schooling in the

middle grades. Review of Educational Research, 64 (2), 287-309.D'Amico, S. B., & Bell-Nathaniel, D. (1981, April). Facilitating interracial

contact: Let the structure do it for you. Paper presented at the annual meeting ofthe American Educational Research Association, Los Angeles, CA.

Eccles, J. S., Wigfield, A., Midgley, C., Reuman, D., Mac Iver, D., &Feldlaufer, H. (1993). Negative effects of traditional middle schools on students'

motivation. Elementary School Journal, 93 (5), 553-574.Fippiriger, F. (1967). An empirical study of scholastic achievement of pupils

in fully and partially grade-differentiated schools. School and Psychology, 14 (4),

97-104.French, D. C., Waas, G. A., Stright, A. L., & Baker, J. A. (1986). Leadership

asymmetries in mixed-age children's groups. Child Development, 57 (5), 1277-

1283.

George, P. S. (1987). Long-term teacher-student relationships: A middleschool case study. Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association.

Marsh, M. M. (1980). Academic achievement and school-wide grouping of

students in two middle schools. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of

Florida, Gainesville, FL.

Mizelle, N. B. (1993, April). Classroom structures and student motivation:A study of the Delta Project. Paper presented at the Aimual Meeting of the Ameri-

can Educational Research Association, Atlanta, GA.

Pate, P. E., Mizelle, N. B., Hart, L. E., Jordan, J., Matthews, R., Matthews,

S., Scott, V., & Brantley, V. (1993). The Delta Project: A three year longitudinal

study of middle school change. Middle School Journal, 25 (1), 24-27.69

8.0-

WHAT RESEARCH SAYS

Roderick, M. (1994). Grade retention and school dropout: Investigating the

association. American Educational Research Journal, 31 (4), 729-759.Rowley, S. D. (1992). Multigrade classrooms in Pakistan: How teacher con-

ditions and practices affect student achievement. Unpublished doctoral disserta-tion, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.

Smith, K. A. (1993). Attitudes towards multiple aged classrooms of third,fourth, fifth, and sixth grade students. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.ED 361088).

Young, S. J., & Boyle, R. A. (1994, April). Grade level status effects inmultiage groupwork: The Lady Bountiful syndrome. Paper presented at the Annual

Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.

Research SummariesGutiérrez , R., & Slavin, R. E. (1992). Achievement effects of nongraded

elementary schools: A best evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research,62 (4), 333-376.

Miller, B. A. (1989). The multigrade classroom: A resource handbook forsmall rural schools. Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Lab. (ERICDocument 320-719).

Miller, B. A. (1990). A review of the quantitative research on multigradeinstruction. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 7 (1), 1-8.

Miller, B. A. (1991). A review of the qualitative research on multigrade in-struction. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 7 (2), 3-12.

Pavan, B. N. (1992). The benefits of nongraded schools. Educational Lead-ership, 50 (2), 22-25.

Pratt, D. (1986). On the merits of multiage classrooms. Journal of Researchin Rural Education, 3 (3), 111-115.

Veenman, S. (1995). Cognitive and noncognitive effects of multigrade and

multiage classes: A best-evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 65(4), 319-381.

Descriptions of Practice and ProgramsAlioto, K. (1994). Multiage: A parent's view. In P. Chase & J. Doan (Eds.),

Full circle: A new look at multiage education (pp. 107-114). Portsmouth, NH:Heinemann.

Bingham, A. (1993). Snapshots of a multiage community. In C. Rathbone(Ed.), Multiage portraits: Teaching and learning in mixed-age classrooms (pp.65-84). Peterborough, NH: Crystal Springs Books.

70

81


Miller, B. (1994). Children at the center: Implementing the multiage class-room. Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory.

Oxley, D. (1989). Smaller is better. American Educator, 13 (1), 28-31, 51-52.

Ratzki, A. (1988). The remarkable impact of creating a school community.

American Educator, 12 (1), 10-17, 38-39.

Miscellaneous ResourcesAnderson, R. H., & Pavan, B. N. (1993). Nongradedness: Helping it to hap-

pen. Lancaster, PA: Technomic.

Author. (1996). The national educational goals report: Building a nation oflearners. Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office.

Beane, J., & Lipka, R. (1986). Self-concept, self-esteem, and the curricu-lum. New York: Teachers College Press.

Eichhorn, D. H. (1966). The middle school. New York: Center for AppliedResearch in Education.

Fogarty, R. (Ed.). (1993). The multiage classroom: A collection. Palatine,IL: IRI/Skylight Publishers.

Miller, B. A. (1996). A basic understanding of multiage grouping. The School

Administrator, 53 (1), 12-17.

Scales, P. C. (1991). A portrait of young adolescents in the 1990s. Carrboro,

NC: Center for Early Adolescence.

8 271

R RRRR VAR RRR RRRRR RRRR

Betty J. Bennett

Middle Level Discipline and YoungAdolescents: Making the Connection

Concern about classroom management and school discipline is notnew. Since the first public opinion Gallup poll involving educa-tion in 1969, school discipline has been represented as the number

one concern on 14 of 15 occasions. In the twenty-first annual Gallup pollof the public attitude toward public schools, "lack of school discipline"ranked number two, second only to drug problems (Evanac, 1993). Nu-merous methods and materials have been developed on disciplinary ap-prodches because the problem of discipline in the schools is so immediate.Few proposed discipline methods or models, however, deal specificallywith the unique needs of young adolescents even though most teacherswho work with middle school age students usually feel that, in reference toclassroom discipline, this particular age group is the most difficult groupwith which to work (Stradley & Aspinall, 1975).

Perhaps this lack of a specific middle school discipline model is par-tially due to the fact that there is no single model of the All-AmericanYoung Adolescent because of the vast physical, social, emotional, and in-tellectual differences between them. Because of this variability, especiallyemotional development, attempts have been made to consider these needsand provide a unique program for students of this age group. It is particu-larly important for middle schools to strive to achieve an effective plan fordiscipline that not only serves the school environment, but also assists youngadolescents in making a successful transition through these trying years.

Through my review of the relevant literature on discipline effective-ness, I have identified eight themes that were most prominent in the litera-ture: (1) development of a school-wide discipline plan; (2) inservice pro-

738 3


grams; (3) classroom discipline plans; (4) a repertoire of discipline modelsfor teachers; (5) educating students; (6) implementation; (7) leadership;and (8) positive school climate.

Zi Development of a school-wide discipline planDiscipline, to be effective, must be a school-wide effort (Evanac,

1993). This effort begins with an awareness of all of those involved of theneed for school-wide procedures for preventing and/or responding to dis-ruptive student behavior. In fact, it has been estimated that three out ofevery four schools have some form of printed disciplinary code. The devel-opment of a school-wide management program not only raises expecta-tions and increases the visibility of student management issues, but canreduce disruptive behavior and improve student achievement (Jones, 1984).

Much literature exists describing procedures necessary for develop-ing effective discipline plans. The one recommendation that is most fre-quently mentioned among the plethora of literature on developing disciplineplans is that of the plan's development being of a collaborative nature.Burns (1985) stated that "the key to effective discipline" is in collaborationbetween the teachers and the administration in the development of theschool-wide discipline plan (p. 3). A plan single-handedly devised by theadministration would likely meet with immediate opposition from thosefaculty members who might feel that the plan was being imposed uponthem (Lane, 1989).

A majority of the literature reviewed indicated a need for involvingteachers and administrators, as well as including input from students andparents in developing a school-wide discipline plan (Blendinger, Cornelious,McGrath, & Rose, 1993; Evanac, 1993; Gaustad, 1992; Gilchrist, 1989;Gottfredson, Gottfredson, & Hybl, 1990; Hartzell & Petrie, 1992; Jones,1984; Lane, 1989; Las ley & Wayson, 1982; Mac Naughton & Johns, 1991;Menacker, Hurwitz, & Weldon, 1988; Short, 1988). When parents are moreinvolved in the decision making process at the school, they will be moresupportive. Parent interest and concern needs to be revitalized to help modifytheir youngsters' behavior (Evanac, 1993). Student input is also important.Furtwengler and Konnert (1982) demonstrated a relationship between stu-dent involvement in the discipline policy formation and improved studentconduct levels. "People want to be involved they want to know what'sgoing on, they want to be associated with excellence, and they will workhard to make it happen if you let them" (Gilchrist, 1989, p. 143).

74

8 4

MIDDLE LEVEL DISCIPLINE

Inservice programsIn a survey conducted by Youngblood (1989), principals identified

discipline as one of the subjects that they wanted to learn more about. Like-wise, 48 percent of the teachers and 52 percent of the administrators iden-tified the principles in classroom management and discipline as their topchoice of topics to be covered during certification preparation in a ques-tionnaire conducted by DeMedio and Mazur-Stewart (1990).

"We believe that an effective inservice program should provide for adegree of school-wide uniformity and still allow for sufficient diversity tomeet the needs of individual teachers" (Mac Naughton & Johns, 1991, p.52). The three steps recommended are (1) knowledge of the basic prin-ciples learned through effective teacher research; (2) a background in therange of management and discipline models available to teachers; and (3)training in the school-wide discipline plan itself. Wolfgang (1995) is also aproponent of teachers being familiar with a variety of management anddiscipline models from which to draw methods, depending on the teacher'spersonality, teaching style, and the situation at hand. Many of the teachertraining programs dealing with discipline are outdated and ineffective andprovide teachers with one-dimensional strategies for solving discipline prob-lems after they occur. It is recommended that inservice training on effec-tive discipline focus on methods that are both preventive and corrective.

Finally, it is important that teachers clearly understand the school-wide discipline plan, itself, as well as its implementation and their rolesand responsibilities in this implementation (Gaustad, 1992; Gottfredson,Karweit, & Gottfredson, 1989; Jones, 1984; Short, 1988). Gottfredson,Karweit, & Gottfredson (1989) stated that research on the sources of schooldisruption clearly indicated that schools in which the teachers say theyunderstand what the school rules are experience less disruption than oth-ers.

U Classroom discipline plansSchool-wide discipline policies should be developed that are also in-

cluded in the individual classroom governance plans. "In order to achievea positive school culture, the principal, teachers, and parents must presenta united front on discipline matters" (Blendinger et al., 1993). Classroomrules must be consistent and coordinated with the school-wide disciplineplan (Blendinger et al., 1993; Gottfredson et al., 1989; Lane, 1989). Lane(1989) suggested that the same set of classroom rules and managementprocedures be followed in every classroom in the school. Wolfgang (1995)disagreed and insisted that for a teacher to have effective classroom man-

75 8 5


agement, the system of discipline must relate to his/her personality, teach-ing style, and the present classroom situation.

Arhar (1992) suggested that for middle grades students, since the team-ing concept is used in many of these, consistent procedures for handlingstudent disruptions and setting of rules be implemented on a team basis.George and Oldaker (1985) reported improvement in school discipline andstudent personal development as a result of their enrollment in middleschools, a principal component of which was team teaching. In middleschools organized into "gradewide interdisciplinary teams," it is recom-mended that teachers develop common grade level rules and proceduresfor dealing with discipline (George & Alexander, 1993).

Classrooms that exhibit effective management are described as beingcharacterized by a sense of purpose, relative quiet, and pleasure in learn-ing. In addition, teacher behaviors are present that produce high levels ofstudent involvement in classroom activities, minimal amounts of studentbehaviors that interfere with the teacher's or other students' work, and effi-cient use of instructional time (Emmer & Evertson, 1981). Within theseclassrooms, the rules and expectations are clearly posted (Blendinger et al.,1993; Lane, 1989). In addition, these rules must be clearly defined andcommunicated (Blendinger et al., 1993; Gottfredson et al., 1990).

Classroom discipline rules and procedures should be developed withthe unique needs of students in mind. This recommendation pertains par-ticularly to young adolescents who are experiencing many physical, cogni-tive, and psychological changes that may effect their behavior, as well astheir attitudes toward themselves (George & Alexander, 1993). The class-room discipline plans must include positive reinforcers that encourage goodbehavior (Las ley & Wayson, 1982).

Finally, educators should not assume that students come to schoolwith common ideas about proper behavior. In addition to learning the school-wide and classroom discipline policies, students must also be made awareof what behaviors are appropriate in varying circumstances and environ-ments. Part of middle school educators' responsibilities involve teachingstudents how to behave (Greenlee & Ogletree, 1993).

IJ A repertoire of discipline models for teachersJust as individual young adolescents differ immensely from one an-

other, so do the discipline-related incidents in which they becomeinvolved.In addition, vast differences exist between individual teachers' philoso-phies, styles, personal preferences, and personalities. The wide variation

8 676


among these factors pose difficulties when it comes to trying to incorpo-rate one discipline model throughout the entire school.

A principal may decide on one of the many packaged discipline mod-els available, have a consultant deliver an inservice workshop to the teachersand provide them with reading materials about how to enforce the model,and then to tell the teachers, "Now go back to your classrooms and disci-pline those kids!" Unfortunately, this "one model approach" leaves theteacher with "a limited range of techniques for dealing with the limitlessrange of behaviors in children" (Wolfgang, 1995). One approach to disci-pline will not work with all students or for all teachers. Teachers need adiverse "bag of tricks" which includes knowledge of a variety of disci-pline models and techniques.

As mentioned earlier, for a discipline plan to be effective, it must beconsistent and be a school wide effort. This consistency is possible evenwhile allowing for various situations, teachers' personalities, and the di-verse nature of the students. By setting school-wide, or team-wide, rulesand procedures, more consistency is assured. Teachers should be alloweda certain degree of latitude in how these rules are enforced and procedurescarried out in their individual classrooms. When a teacher has an abundantrepertoire of discipline models, he/she can make suitable decisions as towhat strategies will be most effective in various situations and developshis or her own style.

An abundance of discipline models exist ranging from those thatemphasize verbal communication to models that advocate corporal pun-ishment as a means of disciplining unruly students. Most models havetheir good and less desirable attributes. Teachers may pick and choosecertain elements from models that fit their philosophy of classroom disci-pline. The key to success is whether or not a particular method facilitatesthe desired outcome.

In Solving Discipline Problems: Methods and Models For Today'sTeachers (1995), Wolfgang described eight popular discipline models andincluded a section describing the strengths and limitations of each. Eachof these models is placed on a continuum of teacher behaviors in dealingwith discipline incidents that reflects a graduated scale of teacher control.This allows for a comparison of the techniques and strategies involved ineach model. In addition, the models are arranged in order from types thatencourage the student to do his/her own problem solving to types wherethe belief is held that students develop only by the conditioning of outsideforces (Wolfgang, 1995). In the following

lthese models will

e

77


be briefly described in order from emphasizing student control to empha-sizing teacher control.

In the first model Thomas Gordon's Teacher Effectiveness Training(T.E.T), the role of the teacher is to be a supportive, noncritical facilitatorwho believes that the student has the ability to identify and solve his or herown unique problems (Gordon, 1974). The second model, Berne (1964)and Harris' (1969) Transactional Analysis, concludes that in all people thereexist three states of being; the child, adult, and parent. The teacher's role inthis model is to determine which state the child is operating in when he/ sheis misbehaving and then to choose the correct way to respond based uponthe responses recommended in the model (Harris, 1969).

In Raths and Simon's Values Clarification model, teachers attempt toprovide students with activities that allow them to investigate their ownways of behaving (Raths, Harmin, & Simon, 1966). In the Social Disciplinemodel of Rudolf Dreikurs (1968), it is believed that students misbehavebecause of their failure to gain social acceptance. Each student is describedto have one of four subconscious goals that motivate his/her misbehaviorand subsequent desire for social acceptance. In this model, teachers iden-tify whether the misbehaving student's goal is to get attention, to gain powerand control, to get revenge, or to show helplessness or inadequacy. Teach-ers then respond with techniques described in the model to fit the student'sgoal.

The Reality Model by William Glasser (1975) requires that the mis-behaving student be made aware of and become responsible for the conse-quences of his or her actions. This approach involves behavior contractsand logical consequences. Next, behavior modification techniques are de-scribed which operate under the premise that all children will learn to abideby certain standards if they receive proper reinforcements. Ideally, behaviorsthat are inappropriate should be ignored and acceptable behavior rewarded.If these means fail, then the teacher resorts to actions such as isolation(Blackham & Silberman, 1975).

The Assertiveness Model of Lee and Marlene Canter (1976) is sug-gested as a discipline approach to be used only after the students alreadyknow the rules. This model focuses on the idea that the teacher has a rightto teach and a right to expect the students to behave. The model involves astructured plan involving consequences for misbehaviors, even if they oc-cur more than once. The consequences include withholding privileges, iso-lation, or a visit to the principal. Positive reinforcers are also used in theform of free time, games, or trips. Finally, the Behaviorism/PunishmentModel by Englemann (1969) and Dobson (1970) advocates physical pun-

78


ishment in order for students to learn standards of behavior. Engleman andDobson believe that the most effective practice a teacher has available tohim or her is inflicting physical pain.

A wide variety of models are available to teachers and the modelsdiscussed here are a mere sample of those available. The key point here isthat the more knowledge that a teacher has of types of discipline approaches,the greater the chance that he/she will have something in his/her repertoirethat will most effectively address discipline situations.

1:1 Educating studentsDiscipline problems are not only of concern to teachers, parents, and

administrators, they are a major concern to the students as well. Much ofthe literature on school discipline suggests that students should actually betaught the school-wide as well as the classroom discipline rules and proce-dures (Blendinger et al., 1993; Burns, 1985; Emmer & Evertson, 1981;Gaustad, 1992; Gottfredson et al., 1989; Lane, 1989; Short, 1988).

In addition to school rules and procedures, students should also betaught how to behave. "Students need to learn to behave in a socially ap-proved manner in order for a healthy learning environment to exist"(Greenlee & Ogletree, 1993, p. 4). Gaustad (1992) referred to this need forstudents to be taught to behave and urged administrators to regarddisciplinary referrals as opportunities to teach students social skills. Muchof the literature on school discipline describes schools with effectivediscipline as being ones in which students learn how to behave (Blendingeret al., 1993: Burns, 1985; Emmer & Evertson, 1981; Hartzell & Petrie,1992; Jones, 1984). Hartzell and Petrie (1992) suggested that students learnhow to behave through modeling by teachers, administrators, and parents.Lane (1989) referred to encouraging the development of responsible stu-dents when he stated, "Teaching discipline as a skill has resulted in fewerdiscipline related school problems" (p. 8).

Other areas that needed to be included in the curriculum aimed atimproving school discipline involve teaching students responsibility andvalues. Burns (1985) suggested that expectations of behavior such as respectfor adults, patriotic behavior, or not stealing be taught. Other teaching sug-gestions include deference, civility, courtesy, and accountability which needto be reinforced both in the home and at school (Hartzell & Petrie, 1992).George and Alexander (1993) suggested that educating students in valuescan be accomplished through the advisor/advisee program at the middleschool level. They state that with the support of parents and communitymembers, teachers can successfully teach school-oriented values. Such

79 8 9


values as honesty, cleanliness, punctuality, tolerance, friendliness, endur-ance, and loyalty are included in effective advisory programs.

Another way in which to educate students in values and moral devel-opment is through character education. Character education began at thebeginning of this century as a way to teach character. A form of charactereducation widely used at that time was called the Children's Morality Codewhich stressed the ten laws of right living. These were self control, goodhealth, kindness, sportsmanship, self-reliance, duty, reliability, truth, goodworkmanship, and teamwork (Hutchins, 1917).

Character education curricula all but disappeared by the 1950s. How-ever, in 1966, Lawrence Kohlberg's application of his work in cognitive-development theory of moral reasoning to moral education in schoolsbrought about the rebirth of character education. Moral reasoning and val-ues clarification dominated the field of character education for the nexttwenty years (Leming, 1993).

Generally, it is suggested in the research that the teaching of valuesand moral thinking begin in the early elementary grades. However, themiddle school years are not too late. Considering the massive cognitive,social, emotional, intellectual, and physical changes that adolescents face,early adolescence is a crucial time for forming life long self-concepts andpositive identities (Davis, 1993). Presently, character education involves aholistic approach where all aspects of school life are involved in the teach-ing of morals and values. This character education curriculum involvesthe teacher acting as a caregiver, model, and mentor; creating a moralcommunity; practicing moral discipline; creating a democratic classroomenvironment; teaching values through the curriculum; using cooperativelearning; encouraging moral reflection; teaching conflict resolution; fos-tering caring beyond the classroom; creating a positive moral culture inthe school; and recruiting the parents and community as partners (Lickona,1991). These areas are age-appropriate for middle level students and couldbe easily integrated into current advisor/advisee activities. Some suggestedstrategies for delivering character education include brainstorming activi-ties, exercises where students think of possible consequences of immoralbehavior such as "what would happen if...," students imagining themselvesin other roles and discussing their feelings, and problem solving in whichstudents clarify and find solutions to affective problems (Davis, 1993).

Historically, public schools have viewed character development asan integral part of the education process. Today, more than ever, there is aneed for schools to take a comprehensive approach in order to positivelyinfluence the moral development of students (Lickona, 1991). Schools can-

9 0 80


not develop discipline plans or teach students how to behave without com-municating values. A character education curriculum is a means by whichvalues and moral education can be formally addressed. Structured charac-ter education activities can facilitate young adolescents' ability and desireto think about who they are, who they want to be, and to form identities asself-respecting, career-minded persons (Davis, 1993).

Ei ImplementationThe key ingredient in effectively implementing a school-wide disci-

pline plan, is that of consistency (Burns, 1985; Gottfredson et al., 1989;Jones, 1984; Lane, 1989; Menacker et al., 1988). Consistency must bemaintained in each offense with each student involved, with each teacherinvolved, and between administrators. Menacker et al. (1988) stated that aschool-wide discipline plan should be based on the premise that rules mustbe consistently enforced. Consistent enforcement of school rules helps main-tain students' respect for the school's discipline system (Gaustad,1992).

Other factors described as being necessary for a school-wide disci-pline plan to be implemented effectively include rules that are firm, but areadministered and enforced fairly (Gottfredson et al., 1990; Greenlee &Ogletree, 1993; Menacker et al., 1988). In addition, enforcement of theplan is the responsibility of all, but for this shared responsibility to be ef-fective, there must be strong administrative support (Burns, 1985). Thisresponsibility also includes the parents. "Programs which involve parentsin providing consequences in the home for student behavior in school haveproven effective for reducing undesirable behavior" (Gottfredson et al.,1989). Finally, the school-wide discipline plan should be evaluated regu-larly. This evaluation should include investigation into the effectiveness ofthe elements of the plan, as well as inquiry as to how it is being used (Lane,1989).

0 LeadershipHartzell and Petrie (1992) stated that the principal, as the school leader,

is responsible for initiating an approach to address the issue of behaviormanagement at the building level. In addition, the principal's role is topromote a positive organizational climate by developing a simple set ofbeliefs and expectations undergirding a supportive organizational struc-ture. Burns (1985) referred to this development of beliefs and expectationsas the principal's need to foster a common set of values. Without this com-mon set of values, Burns (1985) stated that we cannot expect principals orteachers to take a stand on discipline.

81 91


A key principal behavior in well-disciplined schools is identified asvisibility (Mac Naughton & Johns, 1991; Short, 1988). Gaustad (1992) alsostated that effective principals are liked and respected, rather than feared,and that teachers' satisfaction with school discipline policy was related totheir relationship with the principal. The quality of support offered by theadministration in handling discipline matters is also very important (Gaustad,1992; Greenlee & Ogletree, 1993; Jones, 1984; Lasley & Wayson, 1982).This support includes the principal's being committed to the worth of thewritten rules and regulations in the school-wide discipline plan (Menackeret al., 1988). In addition, the principal must be an effective instructionalleader in facilitating the problem-solving skills of teachers and students(Short, 1988) and in helping teachers to increase the connections betweengood instruction and good behavior (Hartzell & Petrie, 1992).

Ci Positive school climateUnfortunately, the traditional views on school discipline are rooted in

issues of authority and control. Generally, in this view, discipline is thoughtof as a set of regulatory and punitive actions directed towards students.Lipsitz (1984) stated that discipline should be seen as an integral part of apositive academic environment.

In a 1984 study, Lipsitz investigated discipline practices of success-ful middle level schools. These schools had a wide and differing array ofspecific disciplinary practices, but all of the schools shared the followingcharacteristics: (1) clarity of mission; (2) close adult-student relationships;(3) an intimate and caring working environment for staff and students; (4)a rather high degree of student participation in the workings of the school;(5) high but flexible expectations for students; and (6) many diverse oppor-tunities for achieving success. Lipsitz (1984) called this "indirect disci-pline," as these techniques help the students to be more self-directed andself-disciplined. She added that "direct discipline" emphasizes punishmentand that "discipline and punishment should not be seen as synonymous"(p. 2).

Creating a positive climate in a middle school takes a unified effortby staff in providing a caring atmosphere for the students. "Better controland improved student self-discipline will come when there is teacher warmthand acceptance of the pupils" (Howard, 1968, p. 28). He also recommendedprovisions for activities and exploration, opportunities for creativity andfor assuming real responsibilities, and teachers keeping in mind the char-acteristics of the preadolescent and adolescent. In their study, George andOldaker (1985) found that all criteria relating to student discipline improved

9 2 82


significantly when they used the practices prescribed in the middle schoolmodel. One fourth of the respondents reported that the interdisciplinaryteaming approach assisted them in developing consistent procedures forhandling disruptions.

Much of the value of middle school practices comes from thepreventative nature of these elements. "Caring guidance is preventivediscipline" (National Middle School Association, 1995, p. 50). "The gen-eral emphasis in the schools should be on the preventiori of misconductand the development of self-discipline" (Howard, 1968, p. 39). By devel-oping self-control, self-direction, and good judgment in our students, weare enabling them to be, themselves, self-disciplined. Acquiring these skillsnot only assists in preparing our students for their futures in the adult world,it also frees up teachers to do what they desire most to do teach. E

ReferencesArhar, J. (1992). Interdisciplinary teaming and the social bonding of middle

level students. In J.L. Irvin (Ed.), Transforming middle level education: Perspec-

tives and possibilities (pp. 139-161). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.Berne, E. (1964). Games people play: The psychology of human relations.

New York: Grove Press.

Blackham, G., & Silberman, A. (1975). Modification of child and adoles-cent behavior. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing.

Blendinger, J., Cornelious, L., McGrath, V., & Rose, L. (1993). Win-windiscipline (Report No. ISBN-0-87367-353-0). Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa.

(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. DC 358 056)

Burns, J. (1985). Discipline: Why does it continue to be a problem? Solution

is in changing school culture. NASSP Bulletin, 77 (479), 1-5.

Canter, L., & Canter, M. (1976). Assertive discipline: A take-charge approach

for today's educator. Seal Beach, CA: Canter and Associates.Davis, G. (1993). Creative teaching of moral thinking: Fostering awareness

and commitment. Middle School Journal, 24 (4), 32-33.DeMedio, D. & Mazur-Stewart, M. (1990). Attitudes toward middle grade

certification: A national survey. NASSP Bulletin, 74 (525), 64-71.

Dobson, J. (1970). Dare to discipline. Wheaton, IL: Prentice-Hall.

Dreikurs, R. (1968). Psychology in the classroom: A manual for teachers.(2nd ed.). New York: Harper & Row Publishers.

Emmer, E., & Evertson, C. (1981). Synthesis of research on classroom man-

agement. Educational Leadership, 38 (4), 342-347.Engleman, S. (1969). Preventing failure in the primary grades. New York:

Simon and Schuster.

83 9 3


Evanac, D. (1993). Developing and implementing a discipline plan forHawthorne High School. (Doctoral Dissertation, Alachua County, FL: Nova Uni-

versity, 1993). (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 364 984)

Furtwengler, W., & Konnert, W. (1982). Improving school discipline: Anadministrators guide. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Gaustad, J. (1992). School discipline (ERIC Digest Report No. 78). Eugene,

OR: ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management. (ERIC DocumentReproduction Service No. ED 350 727)

George, P., & Alexander, W. (1993). The exemplary middle school. (2nded.). Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.

Gilchrist, R.S. (1989). Effective schools: Three case studies of excellence.Bloomington, IN: National Educational Service. (ERIC Document ReproductionService No. 340 796)

Glasser, W. (1975). Reality therapy: A new approach to psychiatry. NewYork: Harper & Row Publishers.

Gordon, T. (1974). T.E.T: Teacher effectiveness training. New York: DavidMcKay.

Gottfredson, D.G., Karweit, N.L., & Gottfredson, G.D. (1989) Reducingdisorderly behavior in middle schools (Report No. 37). Baltimore, MD: The John

Hopkins University, Center for Research on Elementary and Middle Schools. (ERIC

Document Reproduction Service No. ED 320 654)

Gottfredson, D.C., Gottfredson, G.D., & Hybl, L.G. (1990). Managing ado-

lescent behavior: A multiyear, multi-school experiment (Report No. 50). Balti-more, MD: The John Hopkins University, Center for Research on Elementary and

Middle Schools. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 333 549)

Greenlee, A., & Ogletree, E. (1993). Teachers' attitudes toward student dis-

cipline problems and classroom management strategies (Report No. 143). Chi-cago, IL: Chicago Public Schools IL. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.

ED 364 330)

Harris, T. (1969). l' m OKyou're OK: A practical guide to transactionalanalysis with gestalt experiments. New York: Harper & Row Publishers.

Hartzell, G., & Petrie, T. (1992). The principal and discipline: Working with

school structures, teachers, and students. The Clearing House, 65 (6), 376-380.

Howard, A. (1968). Teaching in middle school. Scranton, PA: International

Textbook Company.

Hutchins, W.J. (1917). Children's Code of Morals for Elementary Schools.Washington, DC: Character Education Institution.

Jones, V. (1984). An administrator's guide to developing and evaluating abuilding discipline program. NASSP Bulletin, 68 (471), 60-73.

9 4 84


Lane, W.C., Jr. (1989, February). The discipline of discipline. Paper pre-sented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association of Secondary SchoolPrincipals, New Orleans, LA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED306 644)

Lasley, T.J., & Wayson, W.W. (1982). Characteristics of schools with good

discipline. Educational Leadership, 40 (3), 28-31.

Leming, J. (1993). In search of effective character education. EducationalLeadership, 5 1 (3), 63-71.

Lickona, T. (1991). Educating for character: How our schools can teachrespect and responsibility. New York: Bantam.

Lipsitz, J. (1984). Discipline and young adolescents: Issues in middle-grade

education: Research & resources. (National Institute of Education). Chapel Hill,NC: North Carolina University.

MacNaughton, R.H., & Johns, F.A. (1991). Developing a successfulschoolwide discipline program. NASSP Bulletin, 75 (536), 47-57.

Menacker, J., Hurwitz, E., & Weldon, W. (1988). Legislating schooldiscipline: The application of a systemwide discipline code to schools in a largeurban district. Urban Education, 23 (1), 12-23.

National Middle School Association (1995). This we believe: Developmen-


Short, P. (1988). Effectively disciplined schools: Three themes from research.

NASSP Bulletin, 72 (504), 1-3.

Raths, L., Harmin, M., & Simon, S. (1966). Values and teaching. Columbus:

Charles E. Merrill Publishing.

Stradley, W., & Aspinal, R. (1975). 'Discipline in the junior highlmiddleschool: A handbook for teachers, counselors, and administrators. New York: TheCenter for Applied Research in Education.

Wolfgang, C. (1995). Solving discipline problems: Methods and models for

today' s teachers. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Youngblood, S. (1989). Middle level staff development needs: A survey ofmiddle level educators. NASSP Bulletin, 73 (515), 102-105.

9585

Rebecca Mills

Grouping Students for Instruction: Issuesf Equity and Effectiveness

11 eachers and schools use a variety of ways to group students forinstruction; most prevalent in middle level schools seems to be someform of ability grouping. Turning Points, the middle level reform

document of the Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development (1989),recommended the elimination of all tracking that groups young adoles-cents with others of similar ability and referred to tracking as one of themost divisive and damaging school practices in existence. In 1990, Braddockwrote that "learning opportunities in middle grades remain highly strati-fied despite middle school philosophy that encourages heterogeneousclasses" (p. 449). Oakes (1992), among others, reminded educators thatdetracking is central to reforming middle grades education. So, despiteBraddock's lamentation, there is keen interest among educators in and agrowing body of literature about seriously limiting or eliminating the prac-tices of between-class ability grouping and homogeneous grouping of stu-dents.

Historically, grouping practices have been implemented in secondaryschools despite the deleterious effects of ability grouping reported in nu-merous research studies. Fuligni, Eccles, and Barber (1995) reported thatthe "arguments for and against ability grouping remain essentially the sameas they were at the beginning of the century" (p. 59). In fact, there is anobvious conflict between research and practice in middle level schools wherestudents are tracked for instruction throughout all middle level grades de-spite considerable evidence of the importance of young adolescents' peerrelationships, the harmful effects of tracking on self-esteem, and the per-petuation of class and racial inequities when students are tracked by ability.Research on young adolescents and their schooling reveals no known ben-

87

9 6


efits of ability grouping. The one possible exception might be the benefitsthat can accrue from special academic programs for mathematically tal-ented students. Arguments once considered persuasive for grouping stu-dents by ability for instruction are losing their influence in light of a grow-ing body of evidence that the practice results in few achievement benefitsand several negative effects. This chapter will include a summary of recentresearch on prevalent ability grouping practices, a review of recent researchon ability grouping and tracking, and suggestions for further research.

Braddock (1990) reported that instructional grouping practices cando one of two things; either they can help schools meet the varying needsof students and create positive learning climates or they can exaggerate thedifferences among students, label some students as slow, and create poorclimates for learning. He also reminded educators that, when students areassigned to classes, schools define their peer groups. Although students intracked classes learn no more, on average, than peers of comparable abilityin nontracked classes, many classroom teachers continue to defend the pro-cess of tracking. Proponents of tracking argue that the process helps schoolsmeet the varying needs of students, provides low-achieving students withthe attention and slower work pace that they require, allows high-achievingstudents to be sufficiently challenged by faster-paced, more demanding les-sons, and permits teachers to provide different materials for high achieversand more support to low achievers.

Those who argue for the dissolution of the practice of tracking areconcerned about the perceived psychological damage to low achievers, theslower pace and lower quality of instruction, the more inexperienced orsometimes less capable teachers assigned to teach lower ability students,the low expectations for student performance held by teachers, and the ab-sence of strong behavioral peer role models in classes for low-ability stu-dents. Many middle level theorists believe that young adolescents cannotmeet goals related to their personal development through tracking (CarnegieCouncil on Adolescent Development, 1989; Fuligni, Eccles, & Barber, 1995;Stevenson, 1992). They argue that young adolescents, naturally inclinedtoward learning from their peers, need to be grouped with individuals whoare different. Additionally, young adolescents are vulnerable as they struggleto establish a sense of their own identity; tracking often creates negativeperceptions of lower ability students that affect also the students' self-per-ceptions. Tracking, the literature says, has a negative effect on lower-trackedstudents' motivation and opportunities to learn as well as on their lifechances. It also perpetuates class and racial inequities (Oakes, 1992).

Fuligni, Eccles, and Barber (1995) wrote that "academic group place-

889-/

GROUPING STUDENTS FOR INSTRUCTION

ment in junior high school acts as a punctuated event in the lives of earlyadolescents, placing them on particular developmental paths or trajectoriesthat have important implications for their future academic and occupationalachievement, as well as their overall psychological and behavioral devel-opment" (p. 59).

I:I Prevalent practicesEpstein and Mac Iver (1990), using data from Johns Hopkins Center

for Research on Elementary and Middle Level Schools survey of 1,753middle level schools, wrote that principals reported over 40% of the middlegrade schools used some between-class grouping, and over 20% assignedstudents to all classes based on their ability. They found that the percentageincreases proportionally from grades five through nine. Wheelock (1992)reported that there is great variation in grouping practices in all grade orga-nizations of schools containing grade seven. Whole class ability groupingincreases as students move from fifth through ninth grades (Epstein & MacIver, 1990; Lounsbury & Clark, 1990), and in grades five and six readingand mathematics are the subjects most often grouped by ability. In gradesseven through nine, the subjects are mathematics and English; whereas,science and social studies are subjects that are least often grouped by abil-ity at all middle grade levels.

A 1993 National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP)survey revealed that 82% of the responding middle level schools reportedthat they used some degree of ability grouping (Valentine, Clark, Irvin,Keefe, & Melton, 1993). Interestingly, the reported use of ability groupinghad declined somewhat from an earlier survey. The 1981 NASSP surveyfound that 88% of schools practiced ability grouping; 59% grouped byability at all grade levels in some subjects, and 9% grouped by ability in allsubjects (Valentine, Clark, Nickerson, & Keefe, 1981). Braddock, (1990)reported similar findings.

Despite the continuing practice of ability grouping, 36% of the schoolsin the 1993 NASSP survey reported that they were considering eliminatingability grouping. George and Shewey (1994), in a survey to update evi-dence regarding the presence and effectiveness of middle school compo-nents in middle level schools, studied schools where serious attempts hadbeen made to implement middle school concepts. Eighty-five percent ofthe respondents selected a "mostly yes" response to the statement that "flex-ible grouping strategies, primarily heterogeneous, have contributed to long-term effects of our middle school program (p. 75)."

89

9 8


Recent researchRecently, research on ability grouping in the middle grades has shifted

from that which reports only demographic data about how students aregrouped and/or what principals report their schools are doing about group-ing to studies that examine perceptions of teachers about ability groupingand focus over time on schools and teachers that are contending withdetracking. In addition, a growing body of research exists concerning abil-ity grouping in middle level mathematics.

In 1993, Slavin authored a review that summarizes what is knownabout the achievement effects of ability grouping in middle grades (6-9)and additional approaches to accommodating student diversity. He drewon his work in a 1990 best-evidence synthesis of research on ability group-ing in secondary schools, and re-asserted that "if the effects of ability group-ing on student achievement are zero, then there is little reason to maintainthe practice" (p. 546). In much of his work, Slavin discussed instructionalstrategies, such as cooperative learning, that provide opportunities to groupstudents for particular purposes for limited times.

In Spear's 1994 qualitative study he focused on understanding howand why teachers think the way they do about ability grouping and foundthat teachers who wish to retain ability grouping are more subject centered,and those who wish to eliminate ability grouping are more student cen-tered; that teachers believe that teaching is easier in ability grouped classes;and that parents are important and powerful influences in decision makingabout ability grouping. He concluded that the "crucial issue is not whetherwe group students but how we group students" (p. 118).

Urdan, Midgley, and Wood (1995) worked collaboratively for threeyears with a middle school staff who wanted to examine and change theirpolicies, procedures, and practices. The school previously had assignedstudents to ability-grouped classes despite repeated indications of the nega-tive consequences of tracking. The staff and researchers concluded that"tracking affects the way teachers think about instruction" (p. 25) and real-ized that ability grouping makes the entire school schedule less flexible.They concluded that it was particularly important to provide inservice train-ing for teachers in middle level schools to help them teach in new andchallenging ways. Trimble and Sinclair (1987), in their study of the rangeof instructional activities used in classrooms, found a "numbing similarityof practices and content both within and across classes" (p. 20) and calledfor a change in grouping.

In a qualitative study, Roe and Radebaugh (1993) examined one middleschool's elimination of tracking in mathematics, English, and reading

90

9 9


classes. They found that shared decision making is important to a success-ful transition from tracking to de-tracking and that the teachers felt thatheterogeneous grouping improves classroom culture. After the eliminationof tracking, teachers reported positive social benefits, positive behavioralimplications, and less parental competition. The teachers also felt that de-tracking had academic benefits due to the social nature of learning and thestrong influence of the adolescent's peer group.

Hoffer (1992) examined whether ability grouping during middle levelschooling does act as a "sorting" event with long-term consequences. Us-ing mathematics class enrollment as an indicator that placement duringjunior high school affected the types of mathematics classes in which stu-dents enrolled in high school, Hoffer found that the main effects of abilitylevel and ability grouping were significant; they also significantly inter-acted in affecting student performance. Hoffer found no positive long-termeffects for low-ability students being placed in low-grouped mathematicsclasses. In fact, when compared to low-ability students in non-grouped class-rooms those placed in low-grouped classrooms appeared to fare worse. "Itappears that all students may gain if they receive the type of instructiontypically found in higher ability grouped classes" (p. 84). In addition, Slavin(1993) cited a longitudinal study by Fuligni, Barber, Eccles, and Fingerman(1990) that examined the effects of seventh-grade ability grouping in math-ematics and found strong negative tracking effects for low-achieving sev-enth graders on their tenth grade mathematics scores; however, Slavin re-minded us that the authors did not report tracking practices for the studentsin grades eight through ten.

In one study (Mason, Schroeter, Combs, & Washington, 1992) fo-cused specifically on the effects of tracking in mathematics, researchersplaced thirty-four average-achieving eighth graders into high-track pre-al-gebra classes with their high-achieving peers. Several of the average-achiev-ing students did better than their high-achieving classmates and took "sub-stantially more advanced mathematics during high school and attained sig-nificantly higher grades in these classes than their cohort peers" (p. 597).Also the high-achieving students "suffered no decrease in computation orproblem-solving achievement" (p. 595), and they scored higher in con-cepts than their cohort peer groups from previous years. The average-achiev-ing students increased their achievement in concept development and didjust as well in computation and problem solving as did their previous "av-erage" classmates.


LI Future researchOne of the most compelling proponents of de-tracking America's

schools is Oakes whose work with schools all over the country has led herto believe that educators need to rethink their fundamental educational be-liefs and values in order to provide diverse groups of students with accessto a common body of knowledge. Oakes (1992) reported she arrived at the"increasingly clear and consistent. . .conclusion that this common way oforganizing students for instruction is, in most instances, neither equitablenor effective" (p. 12). She and her colleagues and students at UCLA haveestablished a comprehensive research agenda that examines new ideas forresearch on the topic (see for example: Wells, Hirshberg, Lipton, & Oakes,1995) and should yield additional information about this topic.

Theorists and researchers suggest the need for considerable furtherresearch on the topics of ability grouping and tracking. Specifically, weneed long-term studies that consider the effects of ability grouping onchildren's development (Fuligni, Eccles, & Barber, 1995); give systematicaccounts of particular schools' efforts to de-track and reorganize (Oakes,1992; Slavin, 1993); provide documentation of promising alternatives totracking (Roe & Radebaugh, 1993; Wheelock, 1992); discuss ways to helplow achieving students keep up with more demanding content and higherexpectations (Slavin, 1993). In short, we need to provide what Oakes (1992)called the "technology of tracking," useful guidance to establishing schoolcultures where tracking no longer makes sense. There is a strongly heldbelief among de-tracking proponents that if we provide for all students thetype of instruction typically found in higher ability-grouped classes therewill result a gain for all students. That assumption, also, needs to be stud-ied.

ReferencesBraddock, J. M. (1990). Tracking in the middle grades: National patterns of

grouping for instruction. Phi Delta Kappan, 71 (6), 445-449.



Epstein, J. L., & Mac Iver, D. J. (1990). Education in the middle grades:National practices and trends. Columbus OH: National Middle School Associa-tion.

Fuligni, A. J., Eccles, J. S., & Barber, B. L. (1995). The long-term effects of

seventh-grade ability grouping in mathematics. The Journal of Early Adolescence,

15 (1), 58-89.

101 92


Fuligni, A. J., Barber, B. L., Eccles, J. S., & Fingerman, K. L. (1990). Alongitudinal study of the effects of seventh-grade ability grouping in mathematics.

Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research As-sociation, Boston. As cited in Slavin, R. E. (1993), Ability grouping in the middle

grades: Achievement effects and alternatives. Elementary School Journal, 93 (5),

535-552.

George, P. S., & Shewey, K. (1994). New evidence for the middle school.

Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association.Hoffer, T. B. (1992). Middle school ability grouping and student achieve-

ment in science and mathematics. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,14, 205-227. As cited in Fuligni, A. J., Eccles, J. S., & Barber, B. L. (1995), The

long-term effects of seventh- grade ability grouping in mathematics. The Journalof Early Adolescence, 15 (1), 58-89.


excitement. Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals.

Mason, D. A., Schroeter, D. D., Combs, R. K., and Washington, K. (1992).Assigning average-achieving eighth graders to advanced mathematics classes in

urban junior high. Elementary School Journal, 92 (5): 587-599.Oakes, J. (1992). Can tracking research inform practice? Technical, norma-

tive, and political considerations. Educational Researcher, 21 (4), 12-21.Roe, M. F., & Radebaugh, M. (1993). One middle school's elimination of

homogeneous grouping: A qualitative study. Research in Middle Level Education,

17 (1), 47-62.

Slavin, R. E. (1993). Ability grouping in middle grades: Achievement ef-fects and alternatives. Elementary School Journal, 93 (5), 535-52.

Slavin, R. E. (1990). Ability grouping and student achievement in secondary

schools: A best-evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 60 (3), 471-

499.

Spear, R. C. (1994). Teacher perceptiong of ability grouping practices inmiddle level schools. Research in Middle Level Education, 18 (1), 117-130.

Stevenson, C. (1992). Teaching ten to fourteen year olds. New York: Longman.

Trimble, K. D., & Sinclair, R. L. (1987). On the wrong track: Ability grop-ing and the threat to equity. Equity and Excellence, 23 (1), 15-21.

Urdan, T., Midgley, C., & Wood, S. (1995). Special issues in reforming middle

level schools. Journal of Early Adolescence, 15 (1), 9-37.Valentine, J., Clark, D. C., Irvin, J. L., Keefe, J. W., & Melton, G. (1993).

Leadership in middle level education: A national survey of middle level leadersand schools (Vol. 1). Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Prin-

cipals.

93 1( .2


Valentine J., Clark, D. C., Nickerson, N. C., & Keefe, J. W. (1981). Themiddle level principalship. A survey of middle level principals and programs (Vol.

1). Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals.

Wells, A. S., Hirshberg, D., Lipton, M., & Oakes, J. (1995). Bounding the

case within its context: A constructivist approach to studying detracking reform.

Educational Researcher, 24 (5), 18-24.Wheelock, A. (1992). Crossing the tracks: How 'unfrocking' can save

America's schools. New York: The New Press.

10394

Hilda C. Rosselli

Differing Perspectives, Common Ground:The Middle Sch ol and Gifted EducationRelationship

Acurious relationship has evolved over the years between the fieldsof gifted education and middle grades education. On an initialglance, comparisons of beliefs held to be paramount by each field

indicate an amazing overlap in philosophy with a weaker, but still substan-tial, agreement across practices (Rosselli, 1990). During the 1980s, middlegrades philosophy positioned heterogeneous grouping as one of the pre-eminent guideposts for policies and practices endorsed by the field and thecommon ground between the two fields lessened, in some cases leading tothe reduction and sometimes disappearance of appropriate educational ser-vices for students identified as gifted (Allan, 1991). Leaders in gifted edu-cation, unable to embrace a total abandonment of grouping, responded ve-hemently and expressed reservations regarding the ability of the middleschool movement to meet the needs of high ability students (Gallagher,Coleman, & Nelson, 1995; Plucker & McIntire, 1996; Sicola, 1990;Tomlinson, 1992;1994). The resulting differences have reframed the rela-tionship between experts from gifted education and middle grades educa-tion into what has sometimes become oppositional viewpoints and fueledlively debates on the moral and efficacious nature of ability grouping. How-ever, one of the more positive outcomes of these debates has been a num-ber of timely publications that have sought to re-examine the goodness offit between the two movements by moving beyond the rhetoric of differ-ences towards a healthier focus on programs and practices (Coleman,Gallagher, & Howard, 1993; Coleman & Gallagher, 1995; Mills & Durden,1992; Rosselli, 1995). At the same time, with the advent of the NationalResearch Center on the Gifted and Talented and several series of federally

95 104


funded Javits grants, a more carefully defined national research agenda hasevolved in the field examining areas such as outcomes and impact of giftedprograms, underachievement, regular curriculum modifications, and iden-tification/programming for special populations of gifted students (Renzulli,Reid, & Gubbins, n.d.). The resulting research has bolstered the field ofgifted education and provided a rich source for examining implications formiddle level education. This chapter provides a brief review of the litera-ture that has historically framed the debates followed by a discussion ofcurrent research seeking solutions to the field's differences. A discussionof the evolving nature of giftedness and implications for both gifted andgeneral education is also offered as a contextual backdrop. The chaptercloses with a discussion of implications relative to middle school educa-tion policies and practices that hold promise for considering the uniqueneeds of high ability students.

LI Nature and Definition of Giftedness and Intelligence U

When Toepfer (1989) called for improved philosophical agreement aboutthe terminology used to define giftedness, he probably could not have an-ticipated the continuing dialogue within the field of gifted education thatstill seeks to develop a predominant working definition. A growing interestin talent development, seemingly spurred by Gardner's theory of multipleintelligences (1983), has readdressed the use of traditional views of intelli-gence influencing the identification process as well as the developmentand implementation of gifted programs nationwide. On the heels ofGardner's work has followed a redefining of gifted education by well-re-nowned experts (Gagne, 1995; Feldhusen, 1992; Renzulli, 1994; &Treffinger, 1992) who believe that gifted educational practices often ig-nore the unique and individual talents of capable youth. In 1993, the firstnational report since the 1972 Mar land Report was published titled Na-tional Excellence: A Case for Developing America's Talent (U. S. Depart-ment of Education). Significant in the title is the appearance of the term"talent" which appears liberally throughout the report and which serves asa cornerstone for encouraging more overlap between education reform andthe development of individual gifts and talents.

10596

DIFFERING PERSPECTIVES, COMMON GROUND

Characteristics of Gifted Students ID

The literature regarding students who are gifted has consistently focusedon the unique characteristics, concomitant problems, and resulting needsthat can help define how this population of students is served. A number ofdevelopmental characteristics that apply to middle level adolescents applyto gifted adolescents as well, particularly: rapid physical growth, varyinglevels of cognitive operations, sporadic brain growth, affective ambiva-lence, and capacity for introspection. Like all adolescents, they must alsocope with the achievement of independence, discovery of identity as aperson, exploration and acceptance of sexuality, development of meaning-ful interpersonal relationships, and establishment of personal values andphilosophy (Clark, 1988). According to Olszewski-Kubilius and Kulieke(1989), gifted adolescents seem to value a more cognitive approach to lifethan their non-gifted age peers and a greater desire for personal power. Inaddition, there are also several apparent gender differences in personalitydimensions of gifted adolescents with girls being more sensitive and atten-tive to form and harmony and boys tending to be more dominant.

Clearly, being gifted places some additional twists on the alreadydifficult tasks of adolescent maturation. Wallace (1985) described the giftedadolescent as a doubly marginal individual. The obvious move is awayfrom the family, which is part of the adolescent experience, as well as amove away from the system that perhaps supported and nurtured a specificgift or talent. This new autonomy may cause an additional burden or re-sponsibility for the gifted adolescent, just at a time when he/she has fewappropriate peer role models to emulate. Manaster and Powell (1983) re-ported that gifted adolescents may feel "out of stage" due to their perfec-tionism and focus on success, causing them to be out of touch with theirimmediate environment. In addition, alienation from their age-peer groupmay be influenced by gifted students' awareness of their unusual abilitiesor interests, causing them to feel "out of phase." Lastly, these students mayfeel "out of sync" as though they do not, should not, or cannot fit in.Buescher (1985) also found that ownership, or the simultaneous owningand questioning of the abilities of these youngsters, may compete with thebeliefs that a debt is owed towards parents, teachers, and society.

To be gifted and to be under-challenged in school creates anotherundesirable combination. High ability students have reported school workbeing too easy (Tomlinson, 1995), spending little or no time studying, andgroup work leading to gifted students doing all the work (Clinkenbeard,1991). In one study of high ability middle level students, Plucker andMcIntire (1996) found that students exhibited al varipty of nonconstructive

97 .I..


behaviors such as interacting with peers, selected attention, and reducedeffort when the level of stimulation or challenge was inappropriate. In ad-dition, teachers in the study did not always recognize when high abilitystudents were trying to stimulate themselves intellectually and sometimeseven allowed the students to pursue nonconstructive behaviors rather thanadapt or modify instruction.

Instructional implicationsMiddle school instruction is intended to respond to the recognized

developmental needs of young adolescent students. Earlier research on brainperiodicity fueled support for a movement away from abstract types ofthinking. The resulting de-emphasis on academics also acknowledged thatyoung adolescent students do not always prize school achievement andthat over-challenging students at the middle school level could contributeto poor self-concept (NASSP, 1989). On an equity basis alone, Tomlinson(1992) questioned the implications of accepting findings that only 20% of14-year-olds use even early formal operations. In her view, this findingstill creates a need to explore viable options for these 20 percenters, manyof whom might be identified as gifted students. In their study of talentedteenagers, Csikszentmihalyi, Rathunde, & Whalen (1993) found that stu-dents seem to benefit more from a differentiated (more complex and evencompetitive) learning environment than an integrated (supportive and com-fortable) environment. Beane and Lipka's (1986) finding that only 25% ofan individual's academic school achievement is linked to IQ while 50% isrelated to self-concept has posed another anathema for researchers in giftededucation who believe that for gifted students, academic success plays animportant role in maintaining self-esteem. Furthermore this aspect of self-concept is supported by students' intellectual peers who act as "mental cata-lysts and who provide realistic perspective of their abilities" (Sicola, 1990).Many advocates for gifted education agree with Bloom (1985) who foundin his study that "...exceptional levels of talent development require certaintypes of environmental support, special experiences, excellent teaching,and appropriate motivational encouragement at each stage of development"(p. 543).

To allow any student to underachieve continually is to impact nega-tively self-concept which then, in turn, will impact future performance.Ironically, it was the middle school movement that reminded educatorsthat lockstep-graded practices "force[s] many students to compromise theintegrity of their individual readiness" (NASSP, p. 7). In 1988, Chapmanand McAlpine conducted a study to examine the academic self-concepts of

98

107


mainstreamed intellectually gifted and average students over a two-yearperiod. They measured perceptions of ability in the areas of math, reading/spelling, general ability, penmanship/neatness, and confidence/satisfactionat the beginning and the end of the sixth grade year and then again at theend of the seventh year. These researchers found that, with the exception ofpenmanship, the students identified as gifted had overall higher percep-tions of general ability as well as specific academic areas. However, thegifted students showed lower perceptions of school satisfaction than theaverage students. Chapman and McAlpine felt that lack of challenge in amainstreamed environment may cause boredom which could explain thelower scores.

In a qualitative study conducted in a sixth grade gifted class,Clinkenbeard (1991) found that students who were identified gifted feltthat their general classroom teachers and peers held sometimes unrealisticexpectations of them. Teachers expected them to achieve and behave at agifted level consistently, sometimes failing to acknowledge that the stu-dents' achievements were linked to effort as well as ability. Students whoparticipated in the study also felt that they were graded harder than wereother students and their age peers were sometimes jealous and insulting.Gifted adolescents appear to develop a variety of coping strategies to dealwith these types of pressures, including the use of one's abilities to helpothers in classes, making friends with other bright students, selecting pro-grams and classes designed for gifted/talented students, and achieving inareas outside of academics/school. In their study of gifted adolescents' ad-justment, Buescher and Higham (1989) found gender differences indicat-ing girls to be more at risk for avoiding or walking away from their talentsduring early adolescence whereas boys more often select friends that pro-vide support for their talent areas.

Li Equity and excellenceThe greatest philosophical difference that separates advocates of gifted

and those of middle school concept does not lend itself to traditional re-search methodology. As Plowman (1988) stated, "Education of the giftedand talented is consistent with the philosophical principles and basic tenetsof our educational and political systems which include: concern for indi-viduals, individualized instruction, equal opportunity, and equal access"(p. 60). Yet, services that address the needs of high ability learners aresometimes suspect and equated with social discrimination (Johnston &Markle, 1986; McKay, 1995). Although the focus of Goals 2000 and manyother national reform agendas is on academic excellence (Sicola, 1990),

99 _08


particularly on an international level, there appears to be a swing of thependulum from excellence to equity resulting from economic and societalpressures (Gallagher, 1991; Tannenbaum, 1983). Within the field of giftededucation, some of this criticism is well placed when considering the his-torically under-represented presence of students from culturally diversebackgrounds, low socioeconomic environments, and limited English pro-ficiency. Fortunately, the 1990s have seen growth in a researchable knowl-edge base regarding the diversity rather than the homogeneity within thegifted population (Betts & Neihart, 1988; Ford, 1993; Maker, 1996; Nielsen,Higgins, Hammond, & Williams, 1993). Salkind (1988) addressed two othertypes of equity which should be considered when examining issues of ser-vices for gifted and talented students. Horizontal equity involves the equaltreatment of individuals who have similar needs while vertical equity ex-ists when children who have different needs are treated differently; other-wise referred to as the "unequal treatment of unequals." These views haveparticularly been present at the heart of the most heated discussions be-tween middle school proponents and advocates for gifted students whenthe issue of ability grouping is discussed.

ID Ability Grouping ID

In the middle school literature, the findings of George (1988a; 1988b) areamong the most frequently cited research studies related to ability group-ing. In the field of gifted education, Kulik and Kulik (1987, 1991) are con-sidered the preeminent researchers examining the effects of ability group-ing on gifted students. Kulik and Kulik's second meta-analysis (1987) coded82 studies of between-class and 19 within-class programs and describedthe outcomes on a common scale. For inclusion, in their analysis, the stud-ies had to be quantitative, involve both a control group and an experimen-tal group with a similar aptitude, and be conducted in a classroom ratherthan a lab setting. In 49 studies of comprehensive between-class grouping,the effect sizes were .12 for high, .04 for middle, and .00 for low groupswith the difference between the high and low groups statistically signifi-cant at p < .05. In 25 studies dealing with special classrooms only for tal-ented students, a variation of effect size from -.27 to 1.25 led the Kuliks tobelieve that factors other than grouping played a role in the outcome. Twofeatures showing significant relationships in an analysis of total class group-ing within the classroom were instructor effects and flexibility/permanenceof assignment. The authors did not explain why these features were able to

109. 100


be discerned, but they did conclude that because of the small number ofstudies analyzed, the findings were tentative. The Kuliks concluded thatthe strongest and clearest effects of grouping were in programs designedespecially for talented students. They also concluded that programs de-signed for all students in a grade, rather than only for talented students, hadsignificantly lower effects. The Kuliks noted that their results are, in someregards, similar to those of Slavin, particularly their findings that compre-hensive grouping between classes has little or no effect, either positive ornegative; and they reasserted that grouping can be a powerful tool in theeducation of gifted and talented students. They are cautious, however, aboutaccepting Slavin's generalizations that grouping is most effective whendone for only one or two subjects, when it substantially reduces studentheterogeneity, and when group assignments are frequently reassessed. Stillanother review of both Slavin 's and Kulik and Kulik's studies pointed outsignificant problems in both designs (Allan, 1990). The weighting of stud-ies means that any study that met the adequacy criteria received equalweighting in the meta-analysis, and in the best evidence synthesis, selec-tivity is a problem. The commonly used argument against the use of stan-dardized test scores with high ability and gifted students is also a flaw inboth analyses, in that they may be too insensitive to pick up the effects ofgrouping. Allan also criticized Slavin for including studies in which noattempt was made to differentiate the content used in the regrouped classes.As the debates have ensued, Slavin has led a discussion on the practice of"regrouping" for select subjects as an alternative to ability grouping. To beinstructionally effective, Slavin believes that regrouping plans must meettwo conditions: 1) instructional level and pace must be completely adaptedto student performance level, and 2) regrouping should only be done forone or two subjects so that students remain in a heterogeneous setting mostof the day. The National Association for Gifted Children believes that thistype of flexible use of grouping will help match students' advanced abili-ties and knowledge while still maintaining the important social goals of themiddle school movement (NAGC, 1994).

Li Revisiting Program Organization ID

Over the years a wide variety of programs have been developed to meet theunique needs of gifted adolescents including: special classes, early admis-sion or acceleration options, non-accelerative enrichment classes, specialschools, mentorships, resource rooms, continuous progress, dual enroll-

101 110


ment, and within-class individualization. As financial resources continueto shrink, the inclusion movement gains support, and the public debateregarding segregation continues, the field of gifted education has started torally around options that move beyond the traditional pull-out and self-contained programs. As an alternative to formal grouping, Renzulli (1994)researched the use of Talent Pools which are composed of the top 15-20percent of the general population using either general ability or one or morespecific areas of ability. Students in these talent pools are then offered op-portunities to learn subjects at a faster pace using "curriculum compact-ing"; thus, freeing up time for enrichment within the general educationclass. In addition, thousands of students now participate each year in Tal-ent Searches during which seventh and eighth grade students take the SAT.The results of these talent searches can help districts identify able studentswho may be in need of more academic challenge. Many of these studentsmay also qualify for accelerated summer programming offered at a numberof universities around the country. The approach used by the Talent Searchesis based on the research of Julian Stanley at Johns Hopkins who found thathighly gifted students can progress through mathematics content in muchless time than in traditional curriculums (Benbow & Stanley, 1983). As aresult of Talent Searches, a number of middle schools have allowed stu-dents to take Algebra as early as 7th grade, thus allowing some students tobe able to take math electives such as: Differential Equations, Real Analy-sis, Linear Algebra, or Theory of Numbers in their senior year of high school.Similar accelerative strands exist for science, foreign language, literature,writing, and oral discourse.

Although self-contained classes and pull-out programs have contin-ued to be the most popular vehicles for serving gifted students, more andmore districts are exploring alternative means of serving gifted students.Regardless of the delivery model employed, certain assumptionsundergirding the philosophy of gifted services must be supported.

All children progress through challenging material at their own pace.Gifted students often reach mastery in significantly less time thanother learners.Achieving success for all students is not equated with achieving thesame results for all students.Most students gain self-esteem and self-confidence from masteringwork that initially seems slightly beyond their grasp.Program procedures should allow students to enter, exit, and reenterthe gifted program as their profile of interests and abilities changesduring their middle level school years.

102

111


O In addition to sometimes serving as peer role models, high abilitystudents also need to spend time learning new material and stretchingto their full potential.

o Flexible grouping of gifted learners should be offered for at least somespecific areas based on students' abilities and talents in these areas.

o High ability students at the middle school level need access to a vari-ety of challenging resources.

o Professionals working with gifted students require ongoing special-ized training to support their ability to work with this population ofstudents.

o Gifted students also benefit from associating with students of differ-ing abilities and backgrounds.

e Gifted curriculum systems for gifted students should be aligned withthe district's curriculum, instruction, and assessment.

o Gifted program delivery models should address practices such as flex-ible grouping, personnel, attention to sociA, emotional, and careerneeds, enhancement of study skills, and regular access to technology.

o Program strategies used with gifted students should address academic,social, and personal needs.In 1995 Coleman and Gallagher conducted a study to identify schools

where the middle school movement was blended with quality program ser-vices for students who are gifted. They found successful sites used someform of instructional grouping to offer challenges to students needing themas well as some form of enrichment. A variety of differentiation approacheswere also utilized, including mentoring, flexible pacing, independent stud-ies, interdisciplinary units, and thinking skills. In addition, each site alsohad at least one person on staff who was knowledgeable about the needs ofgifted students. When schools move to embrace the practice of heterogene-ity, they must be careful to avoid a one-size-fits-all instruction. Supportmust be provided to help teachers move along what Tomlinson (1995) foundto be a continuum towards modifying instruction based on student need.Initially, teachers' objections to differentiation may be based on satisfac-tion with the status quo or a belief that "We already do that." Other barriersidentified could be clustered under issues related to the administration,changing expectations, and professional support. Tomlinson also found thatteachers' application of differentiation was often more reactive than proac-tive in that planning was still based on a single lesson format with minormodifications being made based upon need. However, there appears to be aprofile of "early subscribers." They tend to be inquirers about students andbelievers that disequilibrium can be a catalyst for growth. The call for more

103 112

WHAT CURREN'T RESEARCH SAYS

collaboration between gifted and the middle school movement will be en-hanced if schools first explore the common ground existing between thetwo fields (Coleman & Gallagher, 1992), namely, that both are committedto meeting the unique developmental needs of students during early ado-lescence. As programs for the middle school gifted student continue toevolve, the following touchstones can be used to guide program decisionswhile assuring that differentiation is still provided:

1. Do the program services support excellence over mediocrity?2. Will the program offerings help students see in themselves a strength,

passion, or capability that can become a highly developed talent?3. Do the program offerings support students' varying learning needs,

e.g. pace, and style?4. Do the program offerings eliminate an artificial ceiling for learning?5. Do the program offerings promote depth of understanding rather than

just access to quantity?6. Do the program offerings promote the gifted student's capacities for

creative and critical thinking skills?7. Do the program offerings provide a balance of curricular and co-cur-

ricular offerings including appropriate exploratory activities?8. Do the program offerings offer opportunities to develop an under-

standing for relationships within and between disciplines?

1-.3 Conclusion Li

Joel Barker (1989) is fond of describing examples of corporations and in-dustries that have suffered from paradigm paralysis. When rigid imagesand paradigms are retained, the opportunity to help define change is oftenignored and potential agents remain as passive receptors. In the past, giftedprograms have often served as lab settings for innovations in educationthat later have become part of the internalized system (e.g., thinking skills,mentorships, cooperative learning, independent study). Given the currentsituation, the challenge that presents itself now is for the fields of giftededucation and middle school education to build upon their common phi-losophies and use their collective energies to create and refine innovativeapproaches that truly maximize the opportunity for the development ofhuman potential, gifted or otherwise.

113 104


ReferencesAllan, S. D. (1991). Ability-grouping research reviews: What do they say

about grouping and the gifted? Educational Leadership, 48 (6) 60-65.Barker, J. (1989). Discovering the future: The business of paradigms. St.

Paul, MN: ILI Press.

Beane, J., & Lipka, R. (1986). Self-concept, self-esteem, and the curricu-lum. New York: Teachers College Press.

Betts, G., & Neihart, M. (1988). Profiles of the gifted. Gifted Child Quar-terly, 32 (2) 248-253.

Benbow, C. P., & Stanley, J. C. (1983). An eight-year evaluation of SMPY:

What was learned? In C. P. Benbow & J. C. Stanley (Eds.), Academic precocity:Aspects of its development (pp. 205-214). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Univer-

sity Press.

Bloom, B. (1985). Generalizations about talent development. In B. Bloom(Ed.), Developing talent in young people (pp. 507-549). New York: Ballantine

Books.

Buescher, T. (1985). A framework for understanding the social and emo-tional development of gifted and talented adolescents. Roeper Review, 8, 10-15.

Buescher, T. M., & Higham, S.J. (1989). A developmental study of adjust-ment among gifted adolescents. In J. VanTassel-Baska & P. Olszewski-Kubilius(Eds.), Patterns of influence on gifted learners: The home, the self, and the school

(pp.102-124). New York: Teachers College Press.

Chapman, J., & McAlpine, D. (1988). Students' perceptions of ability. Gifted

Child Quarterly, 32 (1) 222-225.

Clark, B. (1988). Growing up gifted: Developing the potential of children at

home and school (3rd ed.). Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill.Clinkenbeard, P. R. (1991). Unfair expectations: A pilot study of middle

school students' comparisons of gifted and regular classes. Journal for the Educa-

tion of the Gifted, 15 (1) 56-63.Coleman, M., & Gallagher, J. (1992). Middle school suvey report: Impact

on gifted students. Chapel Hill, NC: Gifted Education Policy Studies Program,University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Coleman, M. R., & Gallagher, J. J. (1995). The successful blending of gifted

education with middle schools and cooperative learning: Two studies. Journal for

the Education of the Gifted, 18 (4), 362-384.Coleman, M. R., Gallagher, J. J., & Howard, J. (1993). Middle school site

visit report: Five schools in profile. Chapel Hill, NC: Gifted Education PolicyStudies Program, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Csikszentmihalyi, M., Rathunde, K., & Whalen, S. (1993). Talented teenag-

ers:The roots of success and failure. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

105.

114


Feldhusen, J. (1992). TIDE: Talent identification and development in edu-cation. Sarasota, FL: Center for Creative Learning.

Ford, D. (1993). An investigation of the paradox of underachievement among

gifted black students. Roeper Review, 16 (2), 78-84.

Gagné, F. (1995). From giftedness to talent: A developmental model and itsimpact on the language of the field. Roeper Review, 18 (2), 103- 111.

Gallagher, J. (1991). Educational reform, values, and gifted students. GiftedChild Quarterly, 35 (1), 12-19.

Gallagher, J. , Coleman, M. R. , & Nelson, S. (1995). Perceptions of educa-

tional reform by educators representing middle schools, cooperative learning, and

gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 39 (2), 66-76.

Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind. New York: Basic Books.

George, P. (1988a). Tracking and ability grouping. Middle School Journal,20 (1), 21-28.

George, P. (1988b). What's the truth about teaching and ability groupingreally? Gainsville, FL: Teacher Education Resources.

Griggs, S., & Price, G. (1980). A comparison between the learning styles of

gifted versus average suburban junior high students. Roeper Review, 3, 7-9.

Johnston, J. H., & Markle, G. (1986). What research says to the middle level

practitioner. Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association.Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C.-L. C.(1987). Effects of ability grouping on student

achievement. Equity and excellence, 23 (1&2) 22-30.Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C.-L. C. (1991). Ability grouping and gifted students.

In N. Colangelo & G.A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education. (pp 178:196). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Maker, C.J. (1996). Identification of gifted minority students: A nationalproblem, needed changes, and a promising solution. Gifted Child Quarterly, 40(1), 41-50.

Manaster, G. J., & Powell, P. M. (1983). A framework for understandinggifted adolescents' psychological maladjustment. Roeper Review, 6 (2) 70-73.

McKay, J. (1995). Schools in the middle: Developing a middle-level orien-

tation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Mills, C. J., & Durden, W. G. (1992). Cooperative learning and ability group-

ing: An issue of choice. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36 (1), 11-16. .

National Association of Secondary School Principals (1989). Middle level

education's responsibility for intellectual development. Reston, VA: Author.

National Association for Gifted Children (1994). Position Paper: Middleschools. Washington, DC: Author.

Nielsen, E., Higgins, D., Hammond, A., & Williams, R. (1993). Gifted chil-

dren with disabilities. Gifted Child Today, 15 (5) p. 9-12.

106

115


Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Kuliefe, M. (1989). Personality dimensions ofgifted adolescents. In J. VanTassel-Baska & P. Olszewski-Kubilius (Eds.), Pat-terns of influence on gifted learners: The home, the self, and the school. (pp. 125-

145) New York: Teachers College Press.

Plowman, P. (1988). Elitism. Gifted Child Today, 56 (3) 60.

Plucker, J.A., & McIntire, J. (1996). Academic survivability in high-poten-

tial middle school students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 40 (1), 7-14.

Renzulli, J. (1994). Schools for talent development: A practical plan fortotal school improvement. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.

Renzulli, J. S., Reid, B. D., & Gubbins, E.J. (n.d.). Setting an agenda: Re-search priorities for the gifted and talented through the year 2000. Storrs, CT:National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.

Rosselli, H. (1995). Meeting gifted students halfway in the middle school.

Schools in the Middle, 5 (3) 12-17.

Rosselli, H. (1990). Gifted education and the middle school movement: In

pursuit of the heffalump of gifted education. Unpublished manuscript.Salkind, N. (1988). Equity and excellence: The case for mandating services

for the gifted child. Unpublished document, University of Kansas.

Sicola, P. K. (1990). Where do gifted students fit? An examination of middle

school philosophy as it relates to ability grouping and the gifted learner. Journalfor the Education of the Gifted, 14 (1), 37-49.

Slavin, R. E. (1987). Ability grouping and schoolachievement in elementary

schools: A best-evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 57, 293-336.

Slavin, R .E. (1990). Achievement effects of ability grouping in secondaryschools: A best evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 60, 471-499.

Tannenbaum, A. J. (1983). Gifted children: Psychological and educationalperspectives. New York: Macmillan.

Toepfer, C. F. (1989). Planning gifted/talented middle level school programs:

Issues and guidelines. Schools in the Middle: A Report on Trends and Practices.

(pp.1-8) Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals.

Tomlinson, C. A. (1992). Gifted education and the middle school move-ment: Two voices on teaching the academically talented. Journal for the Educa-tion of the Gifted, 15 (3) 206-238.

Tomlinson, C. A. (1994). Gifted learners: The boomerang kids of middleschool? Roeper Review, 16 (3), 177-182.

Tomlinson, C. A. (1995). Deciding to differentiate instruction in middleschool: One school's journey. Gifted Child Quarterly, 39 (2), 77-87.

Treffinger, D. (1992). Programming for giftedness: Needed directions.INNOTECH Journal, 16 (1), 54-61.

107 116


U.S. Department of Education (1993). National excellence: A case for de-veloping Americas talent. Washington, DC: Author.

Wallace, D. (1985). Giftedness and the construction of a creative life. In F.Horowitz (Ed.), The gifted and talented: Development perspectives. Washington,DC: American Psychological Association.

117 108

Rebecca A. Hines and J. Howard Johnston

Inclusion

/nclusion has gained the attention of both the public schools and themedia throughout this decade. Time and Newsweek as well as mostmajor educational journals have featured articles on inclusion. School

districts across the country have been challenged by supporters and legis-lation to find the most inclusive placement for students with special needs.In the wake of the attention, researchers have been left to consider theimpact of this movement.

Sorting through results of research to determine inclusion's effective-ness is easier said than done. Inclusive programs vary greatly in definition,support provided, setting, and populations served. Currently most inclu-sive practices are idiosyncratic from school district to school district, andresults of research appear to be based on the strength of the individualdistrict's inclusive strategies. Specifically, contextual variables, particularlythe amount and nature of the support provided to the classroom teacher, arealmost always considered critical to the ability of the classroom teacher tomaintain adequate attention to the needs of all children (Salisbury,Palombaro, & Hollowood, 1993). Since these variables are not easily con-trolled for research, it is difficult to deduce the true value of inclusion as aneducational practice; quantitative research studies of the effects of inclu-sion are currently scarce in the literature (Baker, Wang, & Walberg, 1995;Lockledge & Wright, 1991; Straub & Peck, 1994).

Over the past several decades, mainstreaming (no direct special edu-cator support) has been the primary way of including students with specialneeds, but teacher opposition has presented a strong barrier to the practice.In many cases, mainstreaming has called for students with varying dis-

109 1 1. 8


abilities to be placed in regular education classes with teachers who havenot been trained to deal with the specialized needs of these students. Theresult has been that many teachers, even those who agree in principle withthe practice of including special students, have found the practice to bedisruptive (Hersh, 1990; O'Reilly & Duquette, 1988), and mainstreaminghas been found to affect teacher job satisfaction negatively (Lobosco &Newman, 1992). In some cases, the curricular needs for handicapped stu-dents have been found to exceed the reasonable demands placed on theregular education teacher, and researchers have concluded that includingthese students presents too great a challenge for those not specifically trainedfor the task (Harris & Evans, 1994; Jenkins & Pious, 1991; Leyser &Abrams, 1986; Zigmond, Levin, & Laurie, 1985).

The current inclusion movement challenges schools to look beyondmainstreaming to find inclusive strategies. Specifically, it calls for a morecomplete merger of regular and special education. The movement has beengaining support since 1986 when Madeleine Will of the U.S. Departmentof Education called for the collaboration of special and regular educationto contribute their collective skills and resources to carry out educationalplans that benefit all students (Shumaker & Deshler, 1988; Will, 1986;Zigmond & Baker, 1994). In this chapter, the impact of inclusion on spe-cial education students, general education students, teachers, and schoolsis presented.

01 Impact on students with special needsBenefits to students with disabilities have been examined both in terms

of social and academic results. In keeping with the controversial nature ofthe topic itself, research findings have varied. Some have argued that oneof the rationales for inclusion to eliminate the stigma of students whohave to report to a "special ed" classroom has actually backfired. Madge,Affleck, and Lowenbraun (1990) used peer ratings to assess the social sta-tus of students with and without learning disabilities in an integrated class-room model. They reported that the special education students had a sig-nificantly lower social status compared to their peers with no disabilities(but these authors did, however, conclude that the integrated classroomsprovided better opportunities for special education students to blend in so-cially with their peers).

Clever, Bear, and Juvonen (1992) compared the self-perceptions ofchildren with LD with those of their low-achieving or normally achievingpeers in an integrated classroom. Their findings showed the lowest self-perceptions of scholastic achievement in the students with LD.

11 9 110

INCLUSION

But these findings, as with so many of those in the area of inclusion,are countered with studies that show otherwise. Jenkins and Heinen (1989)surveyed elementary students' preferences about where and from whomthey received instruction for learning difficulties. The authors concludedthat regardless of the students' type (general, remedial, or special educa-tion), they preferred not to draw attention to their learning problems andwould rather receive help from their classroom teacher than from a special-ist.

In a meta-analyses of the effects of inclusion on students with specialneeds, Baker and Zigmond (1995) found a small to moderate positive ef-fect of inclusive education on the academic and social outcomes of pupils.Academic benefits were measured through standard achievement tasks, andself, peer, teacher and observer ratings were used to evaluate social effects.

Staub and Peck (1995) examined studies using control groups to com-pare progress of children who are not disabled in classrooms said to beinclusive with those in classrooms that do not include children with dis-abilities. No significant differences in academic progress were found be-tween the two groups of students. In addition, the presence of children withdisabilities had no effect on either the time allocated to instruction or thelevels of interruption.

Affleck, Madge, Adams, and Lowenbraun (1988) found no differ-ence in the academic performance of students with learning disabilitiesand their "regular education" peers in integrated classrooms compared tomore traditional settings. Reading, mathematics, and language achievementdata of elementary students with learning disabilities served in a pull-outresource program was compared to an "integrated" program, and no sig-nificant differences among students with SLD served in the two settingswere found. The researchers concluded that the integrated model is at leastas effective as the resource model, thus supporting the concept of provid-ing services in the least restrictive environment.

In an investigation of the collaborative teaching model, Walsh andSnyder (1994) compared ninth grade co-taught classes (that included spe-cial education students) to ninth grade regular classes in absences, disci-pline referrals, grades, and functional test results. Results indicated thathigh school classes with two teachers, a general educator and a specialeducator working collaboratively, can produce significantly better resultsthan regular education classes alone in achieving academic requirementsfor graduation. A significantly greater percent of ninth grade students fromco-taught classes passed statewide competency tests in three different ar-eas. In the area of attendance and discipline referrals, however, there were

111

120


no significant differences in classes that included a co-teacher.In spite of the success reported by some studies, others have found

that students with learning disabilities (the largest group of students re-ceiving special services) do not fare well academically in the general edu-cation classroom where undifferentiated, large-group instruction is the norm(Schumm, Vaughn, Haager, McDowell, Rothlein, & Samuell, 1995). Thislack of consensus in regard to benefits to students with special needs mir-rors the findings of research on mainstreaming. Evidence exists both tosupport and refute inclusion's effectiveness with special needs students,and to date the research findings are inconclusive.

Impact on general education studentsExamining the practice of inclusion calls for researchers to consider

the effect on the general student population. Although they are still scarcein the literature, studies have consistently found no deceleration of aca-demic progress for nondisabled children enrolled in inclusive classrooms.Surveys conducted with parents and teachers who have been directly in-volved in inclusive settings generally show that both parties have positiveviews about inclusive programs and do not report any harm to the devel-opmental progress of nondisabled children (Bailey & Winton 1989,Giangreco, Dennis, Coloninger, Edelman, & Schattman, 1993, Green &Stoneman, 1989; Peck, Carlson, & Helmstetter, 1992).

Staub and Peck (1995) specifically addressed the question, "Will non-disabled children lose teacher time and attention?" in a recent report, andfound only one study, Hollowood, Salisbury, Rainforth, and Palombaro(1994), that investigated the topic. In the Hollowood study, allocated andactual instructional time were compared for six randomly selected non-disabled students in classrooms that included at least one student with se-vere disabilities. These students were compared to a group of non-disabledstudents in non-inclusive classrooms. Data were collected on the rate ofinterruptions to planned instruction. Findings indicated that the presenceof students with severe disabilities had no effect on levels of allocated orengaged time. Further, time lost to interruptions of instruction was not sig-nificantly different in inclusive and noninclusive classrooms. In a relatedstudy, Helmstetter, Peck, and Giangreco (1994) surveyed a sample of 166high school students who had been involved in inclusive classrooms inrural, suburban, and urban areas of Washington State. Seven categories ofperceived positive outcomes of integration experiences resulted, such asincreased responsiveness to needs of others, increased appreciation of hu-man diversity, and development of personal values. The authors reported

112

121

INCLUSION

that positive outcomes were associated with more contact, receiving creditfor the experience, and more substantive interaction. These students didnot believe that their participation in inclusive classrooms had caused themto miss out on other valuable educational experiences.

Specifically examining inclusion in middle level schools, Hines (1995)used both qualitative and quantitative measures to study instructional timeacross inclusive and non-inclusive settings. Middle level teachers whoseschedule included "regular," mainstreamed, and co-taught (inclusive) con-figurations were selected for the study. No statistical difference was foundin the amount of time teachers engaged in instructional interactions acrossthe three settings; but significantly more time was spent in managerial in-teractions in mainstream classrooms than in regular or co-taught settings.

Another research effort conducted follow-along case studies of non-disabled students in inclusive elementary and middle school classrooms(Staub & Peck, 1995). Interviews with parents and teachers as well as di-rect observational data collected over two successive school years indi-cated that non-disabled students do not acquire undesirable or maladjus-tive behavior from peers with disabilities.

While these studies provide the beginning of a research base on in-clusion, most reports on the effectiveness of idiosyncratic programs re-ported with little empirical backing. Johnston, Proctor, and Corey (1995)reported positive results of a Team Approach to Mastery (TAM) model asan alternative to a pull-out system in Delaware. The approach includesseven basic elements for including students (at an average of two non-disabled students per child with a disability in the classroom): team (col-laborative) teaching, learning centers, ego groups, direct instruction, posi-tive approach, point cards, and teacher cadres. The authors reported thatnon-disabled third grade students in TAM achieved significantly higherscores than their non-disabled peers in general education classes based onthe Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills.

The study of inclusion's impact on general education students willlikely continue to be a priority as educators seek to assure equity in class-rooms for all students, including the non-disabled. The literature base inthis area continues to expand, and most reports have found that includingspecial needs students does not produce negative effects for the regulareducation population in inclusive settings. As with all reports of inclusion'seffectiveness, however, it appears that adequate support for the regular edu-cator is a primary factor. Co-teaching, in particular, appears to offer directsupport for the regular educator that in some cases has resulted in positiveoutcomes for both regular and special education students.

113 122


ID Inclusion and the teacherIn spite of favorable reports, teachers still appear to favor a pull-out

model for delivering special education services. In the Hines (1995) study,for example, teacher perceptions did not necessarily coincide with the em-pirical evidence gathered. Even though no significant statistical differenceswere found, half of the teachers studied felt they had the most time forinstruction in the regular class. Survey results indicated that teachers felttheir regular classes were, overall, more successful than either of the twoclasses (mainstream or co-taught) that included special students. In classesthat did include special students, however, teachers in the study overwhelm-ingly preferred the co-teach model over mainstreaming (92%). Most teachersindicated that the co-teach model is beneficial to them (88%). Teachersalso indicated that the co-teach model is beneficial to regular educationstudents (84%) and to the special education students (92%). One respon-dent noted that success depends on the student. Mainstreaming emerged asthe least preferred of the two methods for including special students, with58% of the teachers in the study indicating that it is not beneficial to them.One teacher wrote in the survey margin: "Behavior suffers when you can'tgive them the individual instruction needed" (Hines, 1995).

This discrepancy between research findings and teacher perceptionsare echoed in the literature. Semmel, Abernathy, Butera, and Lesar (1991)found in a survey of regular and special educators that they preferred theirexisting pull-out model even though they generally believed that studentswith mild disabilities have a basic right to an education in the general class-room.

In addition, Heffernan (1993) suggested that regular educators do nottrust that the support offered initially for including special students willcontinue. He pointed to a "widespread belief that, despite what the systemsays it will provide in the way of support, ultimately, teachers will face thenew challenges alone" (p. 100). Semmel, Abernathy, Butera, & Lesar's(1991) study reiterated this concern: "Our sample of teachers apparentlyalso believed that currently mandated resources for the instruction of stu-dents with mild disabilities need to be protected" (p.19) and agreed that aredistribution of special education resources to regular classrooms wouldhelp decrease their instructional load.

And what of the role of the special educator? In many cases, it ap-pears that, as Gerber (1995) described, "collaborate was a unidirectionalmandate for special education teachers and had come to mean assist" (p.181).The nature of assistance in these schools more often than not has drifted tothe lowest common denominators:

123 114

INCLUSION

physical presence in the classroom, andcontingent response to children's immediate needs or teachers' direc-tions. Gerber, 1995

Gerber (1995) further concluded that "there is little evidence that sub-stantial professional autonomy was accorded special education teachersand every evidence that their role was defined and accepted as subordinate.Power to make decisions regarding curriculum or methods was not equallyshared. Special education teachers made recommendations and suggestions;classroom teachers made decisions. For special education teachers, teach-ing occurred in another teacher's workspace (classroom), not their own,with another teacher's students, not their own" (p.181).

The changing roles of teachers in inclusive classrooms may accountin part for the discrepancy between teacher attitudes and research results.While inclusion may seem like a sound idea in theory and may even pro-duce positive outcomes, teachers are, traditionally, resistant to change. In-clusion calls for teachers to not only open their classroom doors to a widevariety of students, but also in many cases to share their workspace withanother adult. Perhaps for these reasons, middle school teachers may bewell suited for an inclusive environment. Unlike elementary and high schoolteachers, these teachers have worked in team situations and may feel morecomfortable negotiating time, space, and responsibilities. Currently researchstudies with a focus on middle schools are scarce, but may be critical toexamining inclusion's effectiveness.

Li The inclusive schoolIn a 1995 study by Baker and Zigmond, comparative descriptions of

schools practicing inclusion and descriptions of the specific children orteachers experiencing it were presented. In these case studies, the authorsprovided a view of schools nominated as exemplary whose administratorsand teachers think of themselves as engaged in inclusive practices. In eachschool studied, some form of collaboration occurred. The main element ofthis collaboration typically found special education teachers traveling toteach in general classrooms, sometimes for long periods, following co-planning, and sometimes for short periods without any significant plan-ning. Gerber (1995) pointed out that "scheduling and allocation of instruc-tional effort was determined primarily as a service to other teachers, andonly indirectly, if at all, as a response to the defined needs of students them-selves. In these schools, it was seen as both appropriate and efficacious forspecial education teachers to act as subordinates, often as passive instru-

115 124


ments of their general class colleagues' plans, responsive to their policies,their schedules, lessons, and physical space" (p.183).

White, Swift, and Harmon (1992) reported more favorable opinionsof the inclusive practices of the Cobb County, Georgia, school district. Acollaborative pilot model was evaluated, and student progress was mea-sured by report cards, IEPs, student attitude surveys, parent surveys, andobservations. Eighty-six percent of the parents felt that their children mademore academic progress in the co-teach model, and 62 percent stated thattheir child had improved behaviorally. Forty-two percent of the studentsclaimed that they preferred the co-teach model, while 28 percent preferredthe traditional pull-out resource model (White, Swift, & Harmon, 1992).

The system in Indian Prairie School district (outside Chicago) made amove in 1991 to educate all students, including those with special needs, ina unified setting. By the Fall of 1993, the district did not have any specialeducation classes in any of its eleven elementary or three middle levelschools, and all students with learning disabilities at the high school levelwere being served in regular classes. While no empirical data has beencollected in the district, the Director of Student Services reports that thesystem has been beneficial to both regular and special needs students (Byrne,1995).

The idiosyncratic nature of inclusive practices among schools andschool districts makes results difficult to interpret. In many cases, reportsare from those involved in the inclusive practices themselves, and there-fore bias is difficult to eliminate. Results have generally taken the form ofcase studies and self-reports, which provide a valuable glimpse at inclusivepractices but little empirical information.

(:I ConclusionsFinding data on inclusion remains elusive, since the methods used for

including special needs students vary from setting to setting, and the natureof disabilities included spans the spectrum. The initial evidence that hasemerged does appear, however, to support the claim that including specialneeds students poses no worse outcomes for either the special studentsthemselves or their general education peers. Because of the difficulty incontrolling for variables and finding adequate sample sizes and controlgroups, studies are often reported as case studies or loosely designed quasi-experimental studies.

125116

INCLUSION

Teacher perceptions appear to persistently favor the pull-out place-ment, even when research supports other practices. Favorable opinions arereported more in qualitative studies than in large-scale teacher surveys. Itappears, also, that effective inclusive practices for students with disabili-ties occur more often when teachers are given adequate preparation andsupport as they strive to met the goals of inclusion. El

ReferencesAffleck, J. Q., Madge, S., Adams, A., & Lowenbraun, S. (1988). Integrated

classroom versus resource model: Academic viability and effectiveness. Excep-tional Children, 54 (3): 339-348.

Baker, E.T., Wang, M.C., & Walberg, H.J. (1995). The effects of inclusion

on learning. Educational Leadership, 52 (4): 33-35.

Baker, J. M., & Zigmond, N. (1995). The meaning and practice of inclusion

for students with learning disabilities: Themes and implications from the five case

studies. Journal of Special Education, 29 (2), 163-80.

Bailey, D., & Winton, P. (1989). Friendship and acquaintance among fami-lies in a mainstreamed day care center. Education and Training of the MentallyRetarded, 24 (2), 107-113.

Byrne, M. (1995). Director of Student Services, Indiana Prairie School Dis-trict. [Phone interview].

Clever, A., Bear, & Juvonen. (1992). Discrepancies between competenceand importance in self-perceptions of children in integrated classes. Journal ofSpecial Education, 26 (2), 125-38.

Gerber, M. M. (1995). Inclusion at the high-water mark? Some thoughts on

Zigmond and Baker's case studies of inclusive educational programs. Journal ofSpecial Education, 29 (2), 181-191.

Giangreco, M. F., Dennis, R., Cloninger, C., Edelman, S., & Schattman, R.(1993). "I've counted Jon": Transformational experiences of teachers educatingstudents with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 59 (4), 359-72.

Green, A., & Stoneman, Z.. (1989). Attitudes of mothers and fathers ofnonhandicapped children. Journal of Early Intervention, 13 (4), 292-304.

Harris, D.M., & Evans, D.W. (1994). Integrating school restructuring andspecial education reform. Case in Point, 8 (2), 7-19.

Heffernan, R.N. (1993). Serving students with disabilities in general educa-

tion: The Partnership Program. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. San Diego State

University, San Diego, CA.

117 1°6


Helmstetter, E., Peck, C.A., & Giangreco, M.F. (1994). Outcomes of inter-

actions with peers with moderate or severe disabilities: A statewide survey of high

school students. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 19

(2), 263-76.

Hersh, S.B. (1990, April). Observing special and regular education class-rooms. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Re-

search Association. (ERIC Document No. ED 321 458).

Hines, R. A. (1995). Instructional and non-instructional time in inclusiveand non-inclusive classrooms. Unpublished doctoral dissertation for the Univer-

sity of South Florida, Tampa, FL.Hollowood, T. M., Salisbury, C. L., Rainforth, B., & Palombaro, M. M. (1994).

Use of instructional time in classrooms serving students with and without severedisabilities. Exceptional Children, 61 (3), 242-253.

Jenkins, J. R., & Heinen, A. (1989). Students' preferences for service deliv-ery: Pullout, in-class or integrated models. Exceptional Children, 55 (3), 516-523.

Jenkins, J.R., & Pious, C.G. (1991). Full inclusion and the REI: A reply to

Thousand and Villa. Exceptional Children, 57 (6), 562-64.

Johnston, D., Proctor, W., & Corey, S. (1995). Not a way out: A way in.Educational Leadership, 56 (4), 46-48.

Leyser, Y., & Abrams, P.D. (1986). Perceived training needs of regular and

special education student teachers in the are of mainstreaming. The ExceptionalChild, 33 (3),173-180.

Lobosco, A.F., & Newman, D.L. (1992). Teaching special needs popula-tions and teacher job satisfaction. Implications for education and staff develop-ment. Urban Education, 27 (1), 21-31.

Lockledge, A., & Wright, E.B. (1991). Collaborative teaching and themainstreamed student. Research report, (ERIC Document Reproduction Service

No. ED 358 100).Madge, S., Affleck, J., & Lowenbraun, S. (1990). Social effects of integrated

classrooms and resource room/regular class placements on elementary studentswith learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23 (7): 439-444.

O'Reilly, R.R., & Duquette, C.A. (1988). Experienced teachers look atmainstreaming: A study done in the Ottawa-Carelton area. Education Canada, 28

(3), 9-13.

Peck, C. A., Carlson, P., & Helmstetter, E. (1992). Parent and teacher per-ceptions of outcomes for typically developing children enrolled in integrated early

childhood programs: A stateside survey. Journal of Early Intervention, 16 (1), 53-

63.

118

INCLUSION

Salisbury, C. L., Palombaro, M. M., & Hollowood, T. M. (1993). On thenature and change of an inclusive elementary school. The Journal of the Associa-tion for Persons with Severe Handicaps,18 (2), 75-84.

Schumm, J.S., Vaughn, S., Haager, D., McDowell, J., Rothlein, L., & Samuell,

L. (1995). General education teacher planning: What can students with learningdisabilities expect? General Education, 61 (4), 335-352.

Semmel, M.I., Abernathy, T.V., Butera, G., & Lesar, S. (1991). Teacher per-

ceptions of the regular education initiative. Exceptional Children, 58 (1), 9-22.Shanker, A. (1994). Where We Stand. New York State United Teachers and

the American Federation of Teachers. Column in the New York Times.

Shumaker, J. B., & Deshler, D. D. (1988). Secondary classes can be inclu-sive, too. Educational Leadership, 56 (4), 50-51.

Straub, D., & Peck, C. (1995). What are the outcomes for nondisabled stu-dents? Educational Leadership, 56 (4), 36-40.

Walsh, J., & Snyder,. D. (1994). Cooperative teaching: An effective model

for all students. Case in Point, 8 (2), 7-19.

White, L., Swift, H., & Harmon, D. J. (1992). Collaborative teaching modelin the elementary classroom. Unpublished raw data.

Will, M. C. (1986). Educating children with learning problems: A sharedresponsibility. Exceptional Children, 52 (5), 411-415.

Zigmond, N., & Baker, J. (1994). Is the mainstream a more appropriate edu-

cational setting for Randy? A case study of one student with learning disabilities.

Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 9 (2), 108-117.Zigmond, N., Levin, E., & Laurie, T.L. (1985). Managing the mainstream:

An analysis of teacher attitudes and student performance in mainstream high school

programs. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 18 (9), 535-541.

1°8119

Jill Van Ness and Elizabeth Platt

A Multifaceted Approach to TeachingLimited English Proficient Students

The ways in which the needs of linguistic minority students are ad-dressed within middle level schools have become an important con-cern in American schools. A dramatic demographic shift in the

school-age population during the past decade has caused an increase inlimited English-proficient (LEP) students entering schools (U.S. Depart-ment of Education, 1994). To meet this challenge, program restructuringand staff development are being used to promote linguistic and culturalawareness (Burkart & Sheppard, 1995; LULAC v. Florida Department ofEducation 1989; Florida Department of Education, 1992). Educators mustincorporate effective LEP program strategies within middle school pro-grams. LEP student programming must address language and content learn-ing needs simultaneously and within the social context of the classroom(Wilkins, 1976). "For limited English proficient (LEP) students success inschool hinges upon gaining access to effective second language learningopportunities, and to a full educational program" (Council of Chief StateSchool Officers, 1992, p. 4), and upon "continu(ing) to learn and expandtheir knowledge of new content, [thus not 1. . . fall(ing) behind peers whosenative language is English" (p. 6). These goals are particularly importantduring the middle grades where, facing five or six teachers rather than one,the needs of LEP students might easily be overlooked.

Although middle level educators may provide a positive climate forLEP students, it is often the case that specific needs go unaddressed. Hence,in this chapter we first present a discussion of the linguistic, cognitive, andsocial issues pertaining to learning languages. By understanding how aperson learns a first language and understanding first language develop-ment one may become aware of how a second language is developed. We

121

129


then discuss the theories and stages of second language development. Wheneducators understand the stages of development, they can develop appro-priate lessons and activities for LEP students. A review of how the nativelanguage and age of the student effects the learning of a second languagefollows. Next, the social, affective, and societal factors in second languageacquisition (SLA) will be discussed. Finally, we will conclude the firstsection with differences between basic conversation and academic discourseand the rate it takes to learn both types of conversation.

The information about the variables involved in learning a secondlanguage is useful especially for specific teaching practices. However, atthe site level, educators must design comprehensive programs for LEPstudents. Therefore in the second major section, we discuss various pro-grammatic ways of addressing the needs of linguistic minority students inthe middle school: bilingual, English as a Second Language (ESL) pull-outwith content-based instruction, and inclusion. The three models presentedare not exhaustive, but rather common program designs that are in place inmany middle schools across the country.

ID Linguistic, Cognitive, and Social Issues EJ

Z1 First language acquisition (FLA)The learning of a language by children is usually conceived as a pro-

cess defined by stages of development (Brown, 1973). Most researchersnow accept the notion that the process is a natural one, aided by an innatepredispostion for language (Chomsky, 1965; Lenneberg, 1967), largelyunaffected by specific input (Pine, 1994), and experienced by children acrossall cultures and in many different ways (Lieven, 1994). A child's first lan-guage, most agree, is not taught to children as Skinner (1957) claimed, butis instead acquired in a mostly unconscious manner (Brown, 1973; Chomsky,1965; Gallaway & Richards; 1994; Hakuta, 1974). The stages have beenwell documented and described for first language acquisition (i. e. Bellugi,1967; Clark & Clark, 1977; Major, 1974; Slobin, 1985), and are verifiedfor second language learning as well. Despite differences in age, childrenand adults seem to pass through similar overall stages in their learning of asecond language (Du lay & Burt, 1974).

Theories and stages of second language developmentBuilding on the idea that language learning is an innate, natural pro-

cess, Krashen (1985) claims that comprehensible input (which means pro-

122

1 3 0

A MULTIFACETED APPROACH ID TEACHING LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENT STUDENTS

viding information that is understandable) and a positive affective envi-ronment (which is a warm, friendly atmosphere) are the necessary andsufficient conditions for second language acquisition. Despite the absenceof substantive research support for this claim, Krashen has nonethelessbeen quite successful in promoting his ideas both in the United States andabroad. Few would argue that comprehensible input and a positive affec-tive environment are necessary components for learning a second language;however, Long (1990) reported that in addition, learners need an opportu-nity to interact with others, negotiating meaning through conversation. Re-searchers arguing from a sociocultural perspective (Donato, 1994; Lantolf& Appel, 1994; Moll, 1990; Wertsch, 1979) also found evidence in sup-port of environments where communication and interaction take place,though they also promote explicit assistance by the teacher. In a case study,Platt and Troudi (1997) found that although the teacher of the LEP studentprovided opportunities for interaction and communication, she failed tomonitor the student's academic progress. The student appeared to be learn-ing English and succeeding with classroom activities, but failed to be ac-quiring academic discourse and knowledge.

Just as FLA (first language acquisition) follows the unfolding ofstages, SLA is also seen largely as a developmental process. The stages ofsecond language learning by children from pre- to mid-puberty are brieflyoutlined in Table 1. Below each of the descriptions are indicators of thekind of tasks students at each of the four stages might be expected to per-form. Given an adequate assessment of an incoming LEP student's lan-guage proficiency level, a content teacher is better informed regarding theoptimal teaching activities for that student. This particular typology of stages(Florida Department of Education, 1992) presupposes that literacy is de-veloping as language develops, an assumption that is problematic giventhe wide range of individual variation with respect to a student's prior lit-eracy experiences. Nonetheless, it can be a helpful rule of thumb.

Krashen (1985), among others, presents a case for a silent period ordelay of the onset of speech, similar to a period young children experiencewhen they appear to be processing, but not producing, language (but seeGathercole, 1988, for evidence a silent period is not universal even in FLA).Young adolescents may need to listen to a great deal of language and makeat least some sense of it before they are ready to attempt speech (Hakuta,1974). For some, the learner's silent period lasts a very short time, whilefor others it can last for months. Non English-proficient beginners wholisten but rarely speak in the new language may make just as much or moreprogress in second language development as their more talkative class-

123 131


mates by the end of the first year of exposure to English (Du lay, Burt, &Krashen, 1982; Saville-Troike, 1984; Wong Fillmore & Valadez, 1986).Heightened self-consciousness most teenagers experience with their peers,cultural socialization norms, or previous school background may also causeteens to remain silent in classrooms. Whatever the origins of silence, theteacher might devote more time and attention to listening activities at thebeginning stages, not forcing LEP students to speak until they are ready todo so. Above all, teachers should not assume that a quiet LEP studentunderstands the classroom talk and is learning from it, simply because s/herefrains from asking for help.

Table 1Stages of second language acquisition

by early teens

Stage 1: Preproduction (minimal comprehension, no verbal produc-tion)Listen, point, move, mime, draw, select, choose, act out, circle

Stage 2: Early production (limited comprehension, one/two word re-sponses)Name, label, group, respond, discriminate, list, categorize, tell,say, answer, count

Stage 3: Speech emergence (increased comprehension, simple sen-tences, basic errors in speech, reading largely limited to whathas been learned by ear, writing limited to brief responses,little control)Recall, retell, define, explain, compare, summarize, describe,role-play, restate, contrast

Stage 4: Intermediate fluency (very good comprehension, more com-plex sentences, fewer errors in speech, increased reading com-prehension, developing cultural knowledge, errors in writtenlanguage)Analyze, create, defend, debate, predict, evaluate, justify, sup-port, examine, hypothesize

124

A MULTIFACETED APPROACH 7r) TEACHING LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENT STUDENTS

LI The effects native language and age have on second languagelearning

Despite general similarities, second language learning during themiddle grades involves two important factors that make the task of SLAdifferent than FLA: the effects of the native language and the age of thestudent. After early childhood the effects of the first language are prevalentand important to consider (Ellis, 1985; Se linker, 1992; White, 1989), espe-cially at the early stages, and they also augment normal developmentalprocesses (Zobl, 1980). Students may consistently use incorrect grammati-cal patterns while learning a second language. The inaccuracy may stemdirectly from the first or native language. It is important to determine the"root" of the incorrect patterns as they will have an influence on the student'sabilities to speak, understand, read, and write in a second language, as wellas to learn to function in the social and academic milieu of the Americanclassroom.

Cognitive and academic development in the first language has an ex-tremely important and positive effect on second language schooling (Collier,1989, 1992; Cummins, 1991). Many academic skills, literacy development,concept formation, subject knowledge, and learning strategies developedin the first language transfer to second language learning in school. As LEPstudents expand their vocabulary and communicative skills in English, theycan demonstrate the knowledge base that has already been developed intheir first language (Collier, 1989, 1992; Cummins, 1991; Diaz & Klinger,1991; Freeman & Freeman, 1994; McLaughlin, 1990; Tinajero & Ada, 1993;Wong Fillmore & Valadez, 1986). It should be mentioned however, thatthere are students entering middle school lacking first language literacy.Such students are at a strong disadvantage and, when possible, educatorsshould make every attempt to teach literacy skills in the native language,while simultaneously teaching skills in the second language.

With respect to the age of the student learning a second language,ample evidence exists for the superiority of the preadolescent learner toacquire a second language to native-like proficiency (Krashen, Long, &Scarce lla, 1982; Long, 1990; Scovel, 1981; Walsh & Diller, 1981). How-ever, with the onset of puberty one's ability to sound like a native speakerand to use the morphology and syntax of the target language graduallydiminishes through the teen years, leveling off after that (Johnson & New-port, 1989; Oyama, 1976). With respect to school learning, however, youngadolescents have cognitive advantages such as greater concept develop-ment, memory capacity, and linked knowledge structures (Vosniadou &Brewer, 1985), so they may initially learn more quickly than the younger

125 133


children (Snow & Hoefnagle-Hohle, 1978). Thus, they may move quicklythrough early stages of SLA because of transferrable literacy skills, butwill nonetheless take a considerable amount of time to catch up to theirnative English-speaking peers, especially in such areas as American his-tory and literature that depend on a considerable amount of exposure toAmerican culture.

Zi Social, affective, and societal factorsSocial and affective factors significantly influence second language

in the young adolescent's second language learning (Wong Fillmore, 1991).Differences in learning have been found in studies on characteristics asso-ciated with personality traits such as introversion/extroversion, sociability,and conformity (Swain & Burnaby, 1976). Wong Fillmore (1991) concludedthat the students who make the most progress are those predisposed tointegrate socially with target language speakers (but, see Saville-Troike's[1984] study which revealed that such integration is not necessary). More-over, Wong Fillmore has found little evidence that differences in achieve-ment levels among the children could be attributed to intellectual ability.Despite findings that individual motivational, attitudinal, and personalityfactors can ameliorate or impede second language learning, however,Tollefson (1991), Pennycook (1989), and others have strongly criticizedthe field in general for overlooking the significance of issues of power,cultural dominance, and ideology underlying the circumstances under whichany given student might be residing in the United States, as well as theeffects of those issues on the programming in which the students are beingserved.

Academic and communicative discourseIn examining the cognitive processes associated with SLA, Cummins

(1979, 1981, 1989, 1991) has made a distinction between cognitive/aca-demic language proficiency (CALP), the means through which studentsbegin to understand subject matter (Collier, 1989, 1995; Cummins, 1979,1981), and basic interpersonal communication skills (BICS) (Cummins,1979, 1981), the social language used to communicate happenings through-out the day. Teachers should be aware even though students can speak wellin social settings, they may not function well reading, writing, speaking,and understanding the academic language in the range of content domains.Literacy skills in the first language are transferable and are crucial to aca-demic success in the second language (Bialystok, 1990; Cummins, 1989,1991; Cummins & Swain, 1986; Freeman & Freeman, 1994; Hudelson,

3 126

A MULTIFACETED APPROACH 70 TEACHING LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENT STUDENTS

1994; Lessow-Hurley, 1990; Tinajero & Ada, 1993; Wong Fillmore &Valdez, 1986). Thus, when middle level educators place LEP students, theymust consider the student's academic background along with language abil-ity.

Ui Rate of second language acquisitionIn his analyses of Canadian immigrants' school performance on mea-

sures of social and academic language, Cummins (1981) reported that youngadolescents acquiring ESL generally develop substantial proficiency in BICSwithin two to three years. In an extensive review of studies of languageminority young adolescents in California, Wong Fillmore (1991) concludedthat many young adolescents develop the oral system of vocabulary, gram-mar, phonology, semantics, and pragmatics of their second language fortheir age level over a two or three year period, although "differences of upto five years can be found in the time young adolescents take to get a work-ing command of a new language" (p. 61). While developing social lan-guage may take up to five years, it may take up to seven or more years todevelop proficiency in CALP (Collier 1995; Collier & Thomas, 1989;Cummins, 1981). In the teacher-centered, no-talking classroom where nointeraction using the academic language takes place, cognitive academiclanguage learning opportunities are limited for both native speakers ofEnglish and LEP students alike. In her extensive large scale studies of class-rooms Collier (1989) found a decided advantage for language and contentlearning in highly interactive classrooms.

Li Programs for Limited English Proficient Students CI

Since SLA is a continuous process (Berko Gleason, 1993; Collier, 1992),and since academic language takes longer to learn than basic communica-tion skills (Collier, 1995; Cummins, 1979, 1981; Wong Fillmore, 1991),optimum programming should maximize opportunities for language andcontent learning across the span of time the LEP student requires servicesor monitoring through the school years. Programs are of essentially twokinds: bilingual or English only.

DI Bilingual programsBilingual instruction entails teaching in two languages, either by a

teacher, aide, or peers. Often bilingual instruction is brought into the in-structional mix in middle level schools. Paraprofessional staffing can be

127

135


extremely diverse, representing the range of languages spoken by the stu-dent population of a given school (see Platt, 1992 for a discussion of differ-ent program models using two languages in instruction, counseling, andother program areas). Research by both Collier (1989,1992) and WongFillmore (1991) strongly supports bilingual education programs above allothers in terms of overall LEP student progress. However, since bi- andmultilingual programs no longer receive strong political support, and sincemost American teachers are monolingual English speakers, we turn to adiscussion of other current instructional models for LEP students.

IJ ESL pull-out using content-based strategiesThe pull-out model for LEP students has been used both within bilin-

gual programs and as a stand-alone program. An ESL teacher works withLEP students in a different classroom where students may be grouped byproficiency level, or they may be placed according to grade level, regard-less of how much English they know. Students may spend one or moreclass periods in the ESL classroom depending on their diagnosed needs.ESL may also be taught through the content areas to this group of students,either by an ESL teacher or by specially-trained teachers in the disciplines.Occasionally programs place ESL teachers as adjuncts in content class-rooms where they collaborate with the content teacher. Although empiricalresearch in the area of optimum ESL program design is limited, it is gener-ally considered advantageous for teachers to use integrated language andcontent instruction to develop the academic skills in conjunction with thelanguage skills (Crandall, 1987; Mohan, 1986; Short, 1991). Content top-ics, rather than grammar rules or vocabulary lists, form the core of instruc-tion.

While typical ESL programs emphasize learning English apart fromcontent (Crandall, 1987; Saville-Troike, 1984; Short, 1993), content areaskills and academic language are taught together (Burkart & Sheppard,1995; Kauffman, et al., 1995; Mancill, 1983), and teachers adjust their in-struction to accommodate the various levels of proficiency (Kauffman, etal., 1995; Mohan, 1986). Over the past ten years, progress has been madein developing, implementing, and refining strategies that effectively inte-grate language and content instruction (Kauffman, 1995; Short, 1993).Higher order thinking skills such as inferencing, analysis, synthesis, evalu-ation, and hypothesis testing are also integrated into the curriculum(O'Malley & Chamot, 1989; Palinscar & Brown, 1988; Resnick, 1987). AsMohan (1986) suggested, the goal for both language and content teachers

136 128

A MULTIFACETED APPROACH TO TEACHING LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENT STUDENTS

is to promote "understandable communication, cumulative language learn-ing, and the development of academic thinking skills" (p. 4).

CI InclusionBecause of the various problems with ESL pull-out programs, such

as (1) language learning objectives independent of the regular curriculum,(2) long periods of removal from non-LEP student environments, (3) lackof access to full programming in mainstream settings, and (4) generic En-glish instruction in the absence of content. LEP students, like special needsstudents of all kinds, have increasingly found themselves in included class-rooms. In this model services are brought into the classroom as opposed topulling students out for special instruction. The inclusion model is in linewith the least restrictive environment efforts made on behalf of specialeducation students a decade ago (P.L. 94-142, 1975; Florida Department ofEducation, 1996). In a middle school, for example, LEP students would beplaced in a mainstream, rather than in a self-contained ESL science class,and taught by the regular science teacher using ESL strategies.

Recently, educators have been searching for ways to address the chal-lenges of inclusion and the diversity it brings to the classroom. The magni-tude of challenges confronting teachers who try to meet the needs of stu-dents with a variety of special needs is often minimized or overlooked alto-gether. According to a survey of teachers who have completed an ESOLstrategies course, however, full inclusion may be simply a polite term forthe situation that obtained during the days when neither bilingual instruc-tion nor ESL were mandated for LEP students, who may not even havebeen identified as having a special need (Harper, 1995). In discussing stu-dents with disabilities, Bricker (1995) argued that inclusion is a complexmodel that must be applied sensibly, not advocated unconditionally.

Well-supported inclusion requires planning, use of validated prac-tices, collaboration, and a willingness to provide intensive and sometimessustained instruction to meet students needs. Educators must recognize thepossibility that the placement of linguistic minority students in mainstreamclassrooms regardless of the willingness, ability, philosophical orientation,or certification qualifications of the teacher, is not in the best interest of thestudent (Harper & Platt, in preparation). The most unreasonable full inclu-sion scenario would have LEP students placed in regular language artsclasses, which include no ESL skills or curricula. Educators promoting in-clusion must therefore realize that this model does not adequately servestudents with limited English or literacy skills (Harper & Platt, in prepara-tion).

129 137


ID Conclusion Qi

In sum, the scope of programs for linguistic minority students must besufficiently broad to include a variety of learners who speak a variety ofnative languages, in a variety of settings (ESL and mainstream), a varietyof academic and cognitive levels, and a variety of cultural differences thatmay help or hinder the learner's progress in the American classroom. Seliger(1984) stated that it is impossible to describe all the variables in SLA. None-theless, he noted: "In spite of such infinite diversity there exists the univer-sal fact that human beings of all ages, attitudes, levels of intelligence, so-cioeconomic background, etc., succeed in acquiring L2s [second languages]in a wide variety of both naturalistic and formal settings" (p. 37). The taskfor middle level educators is to bring learners to grade level academicallywhile they learn their second language. E

ReferencesBellugi, U. (1967). The acquisition of negation. Unpublished doctoral dis-

sertation, Harvard University, Boston, MA.Berko Gleason, J. (1993). The development of language (3rd ed.). New York:

Macmillian.

Bialystok, E. (1990). Communication strategies. Oxford: UK: Blackwell.

Bricker, D. (1995) . The challenge of inclusion. Journal of Early Interven-tion, 19 (2), 179-194.

Brown, R. (1973). A first language: The early stages. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.

Burkart, G., & Sheppard, K. (1995). Content-ESL across the USA: Vol III, a

training packet. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.

Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT

Press.

Clark, H. H., & Clark, E. V. (1977). Psychology and language. New York:

Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Collier, V. P. (1989). How Long? A synthesis of research on academic achieve-

ment in a second language. TESOL Quarterly, 23 (3), 509-531.

Collier, V. P. (1992). The Canadian bilingual immersion debate: A synthesis

of research findings. Studies in Second Language Acquistion,14 (1), 87-97.

Collier, V. P. (1995). Promoting academic success for ESL students: Under-

standing second language acquisition for school. Elizabeth, NJ: New Jersey Teach-

ers of English to Speakers of Other Languages-Bilingual Educators.

Collier, V. P., & Thomas, W. P. (1989). How quickly can immigrants become

proficient in school English? Journal of Educational Issues of Language Minority

Students, 5 (1)26-38.130

138


Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO). (1992). Recommendations

for improving the assessment and monitoring of students with limited English pro-ficiency. Washington, DC: Author.

Crandall, J. A. (Ed.) (1987). ESL through content area instruction: Math-ematics, science, social studies. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents/Center

for Applied Linguistics.

Cummins, J. (1979). Linguistic interdependence and the educational devel-

opment of bilingual children. Review of Educational Research, 49 (3),222-251.

Cummins, J. (1981). Age on arrival and immigrant second language learn-ing in canada: a reassessment. Applied Linguistics, 2 (1), 132-49.

Cummins, J. (1983). Language proficiency and academic achievement. In J.W. 011er, Jr. (Ed.), Issues in language testing research (pp. 108-129). Rowley,MA.: Newbury House.

Cummins, J. (1989). The sanitized curriculum: Educational disempowerment

in a nation at risk. In D. M. Johnson & D. H. Roen (Eds.), Richness in writing:Empowering ESL students (pp. 19-38). New York: Longman.

Cummins, J. (1991). Interdependence of first-and second-language profi-ciency in bilingual children. In E. Bialystok (Ed.), Language processing in bilin-gual children (pp. 70-89). Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.

Cummins, J., & Swain, M. (1986). Bilingualism in education. New York:Longman.

Diaz, R. M. & Klinger C. (1991). Towards an explanatory model of the in-

teraction between bilingualism and cognitive development. In E. Bialystok (Ed.),

Language processing in bilingual children (pp. 167-192). Cambridge, UK: Cam-bridge University Press.

Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. InLautolf, J. P. & Appel, G. (Eds.) Vygotskian approaches to second language re-search (pp. 33-56). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Dulay, H. C., & Burt, M. K. (1974). Errors and strategies in child secondlanguage acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 8 (2), 129-136.

Dulay, H., Burt, M., & Krashen, S. (1982). Language two. Oxford, UK:Oxford University Press.

Ellis, R. (1985). Understanding second language acquisition. Oxford: Ox-ford University Press.

Florida Department of Education. (1990). Agreement english for speakers of

other languages (ESOL). Tallahassee, FL. Author.

Florida Department of Education. (1992). Empowering ESOL teachers: Anoverview. Vol I. Division of Human Resource Development, Boca Raton: Florida

Atlantic University, Multifunctional Resource Center.

139131


Florida Department of Education. (1996). Inclusion as an instructional model

for LEP students (technical assistance paper No. 019-ESOL-95). Tallahassee, FL:Office of Minority and Second Language Education.

Freeman, D., & Freeman, Y. (1994). Between worlds: Access to second lan-

guage acquisition. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Gallaway, C., & Richards, B. J. (1994). Input and interaction in languageacquisition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Gathercole, V. C. (1988). Some myths you have heard about first languageacquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 22 (3), 407-436.

Hakuta, K. (1974). Prefabricated patterns and the emergence of structure in

second language acquisition. Language Learning, 24 (2) 287-297.

Harper, C. (1995). An evaluation of ESOL inservice training in Florida. (Tech-

nical report. 93120344). Gainesville, FL: University of Florida, Project LEEDS:US Department of Education.

Harper, C. & Platt, E. J. (in preparation). Problems and possibilities withfull inclusion of limited English proficient students in mainstream classrooms.

Hudelson, S. (1994). Literacy development of second language children. InF. Genesee (Ed.), Educating second language children (pp. 129-158). Cambridge,

UK: Cambridge University Press.Johnson, J., & Newport, E. (1989). Critical period effects in second lan-

guage learning: The influence of maturational state on the acquisition of Englishas a Second Language. Cognitive Psychology, 21 (1), 60-99.

Kauffman, D., Burkart, G., Crandall, J., Johnson, D., Peyton, J., Sheppard,K., & Short, D. (1995). Content-ESL across the USA: Vol. II, a practical guide.Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.

Krashen, S. D. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. New

York: Longman Group Ltd.

Krashen, S. D., Long, M. H., & Scarcella, R. C. (1982). Age, rate and even-

tual attainment in second language acquisition. In S. Krashen, R. Scarcella, & M.

Long (Eds.), Child-adult differences in second language acquisition (pp. 161-172).

Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Lantolf, J., & Appel, G. (1994). Vygotskian approaches to second language

research. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Lenneberg, E. (1967). Biological foundations of language. New York: Wiley.

Lessow-Hurley, J. (1990). The foundations of dual language instruction. New

York: Longman.

Lieven, E. V. M. (1994). Crosslinguistic and cross-cultural aspects of lan-guage addressed to children. In C Gallaway & B. J. Richards (Eds.) Input andinteraction in language acquisition (pp. 56-73). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Uni-

versity Press. 140 132


Long, M.H. (1990). Maturational constraints on language development. Stud-

ies in Second Language Acquisition, 12 (3), 251-286.

Long, M. H., & Porter, P. A. (1985). Group work, interlanguage talk, andSLA. TESOL Quarterly, 19 (207-227).

LULAC v. Florida Department of Education (1989). Tallahassee, FL.

Major, D. (1974). The acquisition of modal auxiliaries in the language ofchildren. The Hague: Mouton.

Mancill, G. S. (1983). A policymaker' s guide to special language servicesfor language minority students. Alexandria, VA: National Association of StateBoards of Education.

McLaughlin, B. (1990). "Conscious" versus "unconscious" learning. TESOL

Quarterly, 24 (4), 617-634.

Mohan, B. (1986). Language and content. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Moll, L. (1990). Vygotsky and education: Instructional implications and

applications of sociohistorical psychology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univer-sity Press.

O'Malley, J. & Chamot, A. (1989). Learning strategies in second languageacquisition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Oyama, S. (1976). A sensitive period in the acquisition of a non-native pho-

nological system. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 5 (2), 261-285.Palinscar, A. S., & Brown, A. (1988). Teaching and practicing thinking skills

to promote comprehension in the context of group problem solving. Remedial and

Special Education, 9 (1), 53-59.

Pennycook, A. (1989). The concept of method, interested knowledge, andthe politics of language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 23 (4), 589-618.

Pine, J. M. (1994). The language of primary caregivers. In R. Gallaway & C.

Richards (Eds.) Input and interaction in language acquisition (pp. 15-37). Lon-don: Cambridge University Press.

P. L. 94-142. (1975). Education for All Hancicapped Children Act (EAHCA).

Platt, E. J. (1992). Collaboration for instruction of LEP students in voca-tional education (technical report). Berkeley, CA: University of California, Ber-keley, National Center for Research in Vocational Education.

Platt, E.J., & Troudi, S. (in press). Mary and her teachers: A Grebo-speaking

child's place in the mainstream classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 81 (1).

Resnick, L. (1987). Education and learning to think. Washington, DC: Na-tional Academy Press.

Saville-Troike, M. (1984). What really matters in second language learning

for academic achievement. TESOL Quarterly, 18 (2), 199-219.

1 1 1133


Scovel, T. (1981). The effects of neurological age on nonprimary language

acquisition. In R. A. Andersen (Ed.), New dimensions in second language acquisi-

tion research (pp. 33-42). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Seliger, H. (1984). Processing universals in second language acquisition. In

F. Eckman, L. Bell, and D. Nelson (Eds.) Universals of second language acquisi-

tion (pp. 36-47), Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Selinker, L. (1992). Rediscovering interlanguage. London: Longmans.Short, D. J. (1991). How to integrate language and content instruction: A

training manual. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.Short, D. J. (1993). Assessing integrated language and content instruction.

TESOL Quarterly, 27 (4), 627-655.

Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior. New York: Century Crofts.

Slobin, D. I. (1985). The cross-linguistic study of language acquisition.Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Snow, C., & Hoefnagel-Hohle, M. (1978). The critical age for language ac-

quisition: Evidence from second language learning. Child Development, 49 (1),114-28.

Swain, M., & Burnaby, B. (1976). Personality characteristics and secondlanguage learning in young children. Working Papers on Bilingualism, 11 (2) 115-

28.

Tinajero, J. V., & Ada, A.F. (Eds.). (1993). The power of two languages:Literacy and biliteracy for Spanish-speaking students. New York: Macmillan/McGraw-Hill.

Tollefson, James. W. (1991.) Planning language, planning inequality. New

York: Longman.

U. S. Department of Education. (1994). Digest of education statistics. Wash-

ington, DC: Author.

Vosniadou, S., & Brewer, W. F. (1985). The problem of knowledge acquisi-

tion. (Tech. rep. No. 348), Urbana-Champaign, IL: University of Illinois, Centerfor the Study of Reading.

Walsh, T. M., & Diller, K. C. (1981). Neurolinguistic considerations on the

optimum age for second language learning. In K. C. Diller (Ed.), Individual differ-

ences and universals in language learning and aptitude (pp. 3-21). Rowley, MA:Newbury House.

Wertsch, J. (1979). From social interaction to higher psychological processes:

An application of Vygotsky's theory. Human Development, 22 (1)1-22.

White, L. (1989). Universal grammar and second language acquisition.Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

134

142

A MULTIFACETED APPROACH 7D TEACHING LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENT STUDENTS

Wilkins, D. (1976). Notional syllabuses. London: Oxford University Press.Wong Fillmore, L. (1991). Second language learning in children: A model

of language learning in social context. In E. B ialystok (Ed.), Language processing

in bilingual children. (pp. 49-69). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Wong Fillmore, L., & Valdez, C. (1986). Teaching bilingual learners. In M.

C. Wittrock (Ed.) Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 648-685). NewYork: Macmillan.

Zobl, H. (1980). Developmental and transfer errors: Their common basesand (possibly) differential effects on subsequent learning. TESOL Quarterly, 14(4), 469-479.

1 -13135

Laura P. Stowell and Janet E. McDaniel

The Changing Face of Assessment

Many professional associations National Council of Teachersof English, International Reading Association (1984), NationalCouncil of Teachers of Mathematics (1995) and the like have

called for sweeping reform in educational assessment. For a long time, testwas used synonymously with assessment, as if that were the only way togather information. "Test" no longer captures the kinds of measures cur-rently being used in classrooms. In this chapter, we discuss the literaturethat links assessment to learning theory, how assessment information iscollected and used, and issues of equity in assessment.

Ei Linking Assessment to Learning Theory Li

Beyond knowing the language of assessment, most scholars recommendlinking assessment to current thinking regarding how students learn. Whatwe know about the nature of teaching and learning has changed. It oncewas possible to test the amount of knowledge that a student had gained andthat was enough. But knowledge is expanding geometrically. Changes inthe workplace and society at large suggest people need to be flexible andadaptable and apply rather than acquire knowledge. Assessment in schoolthen, must be related to what a student knows, applies, and performs (Meyer,1992; Zessoules & Gardner, 1991).

Assessment practices must also keep pace with what educators cur-rently know about adolescent development. The National Center for Im-proving Science (1990) suggested that assessment should assist the learn-ing process. Assessment that is responsive to the development of young

137

1 4 4


adolescents is also in keeping with the recommendations of Turning Points(Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development, 1989), This We Believe,(NMSA, 1995), and other middle level reform documents.

The development of young adolescents takes place at different ratesand unevenly across domains; they fluctuate between concrete operationand formal operations (Inhelder & Piaget, 1958). Thus, in any given middlegrades classroom, there are likely to be wide variations and continuouschange in the reasoning abilities of the students with regard to any particu-lar subject matter. Therefore, good assessment measures are numerous andrepresent multiple perspectives for example, all the teachers on an inter-disciplinary team may contribute their input to the final evaluation of amajor project. Students, as well, might have input on their grades throughself-evaluation of their work. Frequent assessment measures that gaugeboth concrete and abstract thinking are also appropriate. Young adoles-cents need to be free to express their achievement without being constantlycompared to all other students. Their individual achievement, especiallywhen seen over time, is a better indicator of their learning than having allstudents expected to achieve the same mastery at the same time.

Young adolescents generally want to do well in school (Steinberg,1993). Nonetheless, they sometimes exhibit frustration and lack of motiva-tion in achieving the tasks established by their teachers. In the extreme,this frustration leads to dropping out of school (Wheelock & Dorman, 1988).Assessment can help rather than hinder students in expressing their think-ing and in seeing their accomplishments. To help achieve this end teachersprovide frequent opportunities for young adolescents to communicate theirideas and make explicit their own thinking about their achievements. Re-flective writing, discussions, journals, logs, and portfolio assessment aremeans of helping students analyze their learning. When they see the progressthey are making, being constantly compared with others in the class, theymay take on a more optimistic view of their abilities and their likely con-tinued success even as tasks become harder for them (Ames, 1990; Steinberg,1993). Constructive feedback, ample opportunities for experiencing suc-cess, and tasks that are within the reach of young adolescents are keys totheir continued positive attitude toward learning.

When young adolescents have mastered basic concepts such as read-ing, writing, computations, and map reading, they may become bored withrepetitions of displaying those skills in drills. These students seek opportu-nities to apply their knowledge. Building into assessment the frequent useof application (as well as synthesis and evaluation) of previously gained

138

THE CHANGING FACE OF ASSESSMENT

knowledge will allow these students to grow and to demonstrate their think-ing as well as their store of recall knowledge. In authentic assessment tasks,students are motivated to learn even while being assessed on what theyhave already learned. That is, students are constructing more knowledgewhile they are demonstrating that which they already have (Brooks &Brooks, 1993).

Young adolescents are changing not just in the intellectual domain,but also in their social and personal domains. A major challenge of youngadolescents is identity formation (Erikson, 1981). Success in achieving ahealthy adult identity begins with the young adolescent's weathering theconflicting demands of puberty, cultural expectations, and social pressures.Assessment can be supportive of middle school students by allowing themto express who they are and who they wish to become. Classrooms thatsupport identity formation are safe environments in which young adoles-cents submit work that is an extension of who they are. Teachers respond tosuch work with sensitivity and understanding.

1:1 Collecting Information Z1

Information about students from multiple sources, such as other teachers,peers, parents, self, and community members will provide the most com-plete picture of students' ability and growth. This information can also takemany forms. What follows in the rest of this chapter are descriptions offormal and informal data sources, reporting mechanisms, and the use ofauthentic assessment, especially portfolios.

I:11 Standardized testsAmerican educators, parents, and policy makers have come to rely

heavily on standardized test scores. This reliance grew out of the earlypurpose of standardized tests to detect individual achievement among stu-dents (Stiggins, 1992). The emphasis on accountability and outcome-basededucation also contributed to this reliance on standardized tests. Even thoughstandardized tests are consistently criticized by educators, sales continueto increase (Worthen, Borg, & White 1993). The 1990s have seen a movetoward a broader array of assessment techniques and more alternative meth-ods (Stiggins, 1992).

A growing body of work (Tierney, Carter, & Desai, 1991; Valencia &Pearson, 1990) points to the limitations regarding standardized test scoresin making decisions about student achievement, student placement, and

139 146

WHAT CURRE.NT RESEARCH SAYS

instruction. More specifically, standardized tests fail to view a content area,such as mathematics or literacy as an integrated whole, but rather as iso-lated pieces (Collins & Romberg, 1991; Hamayan, Kwait & Perlman, 1985;MSEB, 1993; Webb, 1992; Webb & Romberg, 1992). Romber, Wilson,and Khaketla (1992) assessed six of the most widely used standardizedtests (such as the Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills and the StanfordAchievement Test) and compared them against NCTM's (National Coun-cil of Teachers of Mathematics) Curriculum and Evaluation Standards forSchool Mathematics to test for alignment. The results suggested that thesetests do not assess the range of mathematics content, especially problemsolving, do not adequately assess a student's process, and continue to em-phasize procedures over content. Multiple choice tests do not capture therelationships among ideas and how students are thinking about a particularsubject (Collins & Romberg, 1991). Valencia and Pearson (1986) foundthat assessment practices have also not kept pace with newer research inreading processes.

0 Teacher-made testsA national survey of elementary and secondary teachers in the United

States (Valencia & Pearson, 1990) suggested that teachers administer anenormous number of teacher-developed tests. Middle school teachers useteacher-made tests more often than elementary teachers (Airasian, 1989).Despite the drive to challenge students to engage in higher level thinking,middle school teachers, more than elementary or high school teachers, relyalmost exclusively on questions at the literal comprehension or knowledgelevel. Tests which require problem solving, critical thinking, and applica-tion of content knowledge are usually more valuable to teachers and stu-dents than low level comprehension tasks. If teacher-made tests are used,students can be very helpful with writing questions for them (Stevenson,1992), especially when encouraged to stretch to higher levels of thinking.

LI Observation/anecdotal recordsWhile observation has been found to be a powerful assessment tech-

nique, teachers receive little training in using it effectively. Observationmay be the most prevalent assessment tool used by classroom teachers.Elementary teachers rely on it more than high school teachers, and lan-guage arts teachers more than mathematics and science teachers (Stiggins,1992). The best kind of observational instruments involve watching andsystematically recording behavior for example, counting how many timesJohn speaks in a small group discussion. Carrying around a seating chart

140

147


while leading a class discussion and recording who participates can pro-vide a contrast to the small group record and give valuable informationabout participation in large and small groups or whether a student is moresuccessful at verbal response than written. Observation is also a key tounderstanding what students learning English as a second language knowabout English (Genishi, 1989). The beginning of learning a second lan-guage, "the silent period" can go on for weeks or months (Krashen & Terrell,1983). Students may also be silent at school and speaking English at homeand so parents and extended family members become excellent sources ofobservational data for second language learners as well.

Ll Interviews, questionnaires, and conferencesAnother means of obtaining information about students' attitudes,

interests, and opinions is to ask them. Interviews, questionnaires, and con-ferences can be easily adapted to particular groups or individuals. Inter-views and conferences can be structured or unstructured, provide immedi-ate feedback, and give the teacher and student valuable one-on-one time.When students feel comfortable and free to talk, interviews and confer-ences, while time consuming, can be the most valuable time spent in as-sessment. These are very appropriate for middle school students as they arebecoming more aware of their own identities, interests, attitudes, and think-ing.

Nancie Atwell (1987), a well-known ethnographer of young adoles-cents' reading and writing, wrote at length on using conferences in thereading and writing classroom, which she calls the workshop. Since thepublication of her groundbreaking book, In the Middle: Writing, Readingand Learning with Adolescents, describing the reading and writing work-shop, other disciplines (i.e. history, science, art) have adopted this structureand written about assessing through conferences, "status of the class" ob-servation, and anecdotal record (see Brown, 1994; and Saul, Reardon,Schmidt, Pearce, Blackwook, & Bird,1993). Atwell (1987) provides a struc-ture for on-line conferences as well as summative conferences. She alsoprovided numerous examples of how she collects anecdotal records andprovides ways for students to be data collectors and self-evaluators.

I:I Authentic assessmentAuthentic assessment (also referred to as alternative assessment be-

cause it is an alternative to standardized, more formal assessment) is theprocess of gathering information about a student's progress and learning ina more authentic context on an authentic task. The student's work is corn-

141 148


pared to his or her past work rather than to other students' work. Almostevery state is investigating or has implemented alternative assessment strat-egies which aim to measure how well students apply knowledge. This trendis due to dissatisfaction with norm-referenced, multiple choice tests andthe inadequate information they give us. Great Britain and Canada haveexperimented successfully with authentic assessment. British schools haveused a profiling technique which involves students and teachers in a con-tinual dialogue about learning (Pole, 1993; Riding & Butterfield, 1990).Descriptions of successful uses of authentic assessment are appearing moreregularly in the literature. However, there is very little rich description ofhow schools develop and use strategies like portfolios and performance-based assessment.

While portfolios are perhaps the most popular or well known form ofauthentic assessment, performance-based assessment and rubrics are alsowidely used. Performance assessment requires students to actively accom-plish complex and significant tasks, while bringing to bear prior knowl-edge, recent learning and relevant skills to solve realistic problems (Herman,Aschbacher, & Winters, 1992). Drawing on his extensive experience,Wiggins (1993) has developed guidelines and criteria for designing au-thentic assessment. He calls for "authentic simulations," much like those adoctor, attorney, or pilot faces when confronted with situations that repli-cate challenges to be faced later.

RubricsRubrics have been widely used to score authentic assessments. A ru-

bric is a scaled set of criteria that clearly defines for the student a range ofwhat is acceptable and unacceptable performance. Rubrics let students knowthe criteria they will be judged upon prior to the task, and often studentshave participated in designing the rubric. The scores of a rubric are matchedto an example of an appropriate response, and students (and parents) shouldhave access to these examples. Two types of rubrics are used: Analytic andholistic. A holistic rubric examines the quality of a student's work as awhole, not merely the collection of its parts and is an impressionistic evalu-ation. An analytic rubric measures specific aspects of the work. These twokinds of rubrics can be used together because they measure different things.Even numbered rubrics (four or six point scales) work better than odd num-bered (especially five point scales) because scorers tend to choose the middlescore in an odd numbered rubric and five point scale is too much like lettergrades. Rubrics are good assessment tools as well as good teaching toolsbecause they provide a clear target for students.

142

149


D Reporting Information LI

One of the key purposes of assessment is to communicate with parents andstudents about a student's progress and achievement. Communication withparents and caregivers about student progress takes many forms. Follow-ing is a description of what the research has to say about reporting assess-ment information.

Li Report cardsAs schools and teachers examine ways to evaluate students authenti-

cally, they are also seeking ways to report that information in a meaningfulmanner. Report cards are being scrutinized in school districts looking forways to reform them. However, they are still the most popular way (asidefrom standardized tests) to report assessment information. Almost all schools(99%) give students letter or number grades for academic performance.About a quarter of the middle schools surveyed (26%) give separate gradesfor effort and fewer (18%) give progress grades for student improvement(Epstein & Mac Iver, 1990). Half of the schools give students grades forconduct and half give written comments. Junior high and middle schools(30%) are more likely to use computer-generated comments than K-8 orK-12 schools who tend to give written comments (and are generally smallerschools). Other kinds of information found on report cards are attendance:absences and tardies (overall or by subject), citizenship, work habits, read-ing level, and requests for parent conferences. As students enter middleschools their report card grades tend to go down, "even as their overallcompetencies and knowledge go up" (Peterson, 1986). Schools that usestudent progress grades or handwritten comments on report cards are sig-nificantly associated with lower grade retention rates, lower projected drop-out rates for males, and more successful middle school programs (MacIver, 1990).

Report cards are being re-examined and reformulated across the coun-try. Educators are looking for ways to make a report card more meaningfuland clear to students and parents. Wiggins (1994) has several suggestionsfor this including differentiating between norm-referenced and standard-referenced information, charting achievement against exit level standards(so a sixth grader knows how he or she is doing against a ninth grader),distinctions between the quality of a student's work and the sophistication,adding more "sub-grades" of performance (identifying strengths and weak-nesses in more diverse areas), and an evaluation of the student's habits ofmind and work (p. 29).

143 150


PortfoliosMuch of the recent research in assessment has been on portfolios.

While portfolios have been a standard form of assessment in other profes-sions, they are currently gaining popularity and credibility in classrooms asa way to create alternatives to norm referenced tests (Winograd & Paris,1988; Wolf, 1989). Some classrooms are implementing portfolios for spe-cial purposes such as learning disabled students and English learners. Afew states Vermont, Michigan, and Kentucky have adopted portfoliosstatewide.

Portfolio assessment is particularly appropriate for young adolescents,especially when utilized in a team or village setting. The use of portfoliosalso aligns nicely with current learning theory and middle level reformdocuments. First, portfolios provide a vehicle for collecting informationabout growth and improvement over time. Second, the teachers on the team(and the students themselves) can gain a full picture of a student's growthand ability across disciplines. Third, portfolios require students to reflecton their own knowledge and progress as they assess themselves. Fourth,portfolios can provide a vehicle for students to demonstrate other talents orinterests outside of academic work.

Portfolios can contain anywhere from two to fifty artifacts, but gener-ally contain ten to fifteen pieces. Below is a partial list of some of theartifacts that research has found students include in a portfolio (Kolanowski,1993; Stowell & Tierney, 1991; Tierney, Carter, & Desai, 1991).

showcase pieces (most portfolios include this)work in progresswork the student has learned fromevidence of thinkinggoal statements/checklist of skillswork that shows growthart workjournalsawardsinterest and attitude surveyscollaborative workexplanations of workthings from outside of schoolaudio tapesvideo tapesphotographs

151 144


Portfolios generally include a cover letter which explains the con-tents. Sometimes it is a metacognitive letter, in which the student not onlyexplains what is in the portfolio, but reflects on why it is in the portfolio.

Two studies investigated teachers' use of portfolios in the classroom(Kolanowski,1993; Lamme and Hysmith 1991). These researchers foundthat teachers implemented portfolios on a small scale to begin with, usu-ally beginning with showcase portfolios and simply collected the studentwork already taking place in the classroom, such as tests and writing as-signments, and kept them in one folder (Kolanowski, 1993). As teachersbecome more comfortable and confident in using portfolios, their purposesenlarge. Teachers will collect and keep more in-depth records of what thestudent is doing, and the portfolio takes on a more centralized role in as-sessment in the classroom (Lamme & Hysmith, 1991). Eventually portfo-lios are used to inform instruction, assess student growth, and enable stu-dents to reflect on and evaluate their own work.

Student thinking about portfolios develops in similar ways to teach-ers' implementation. In most classrooms (Kolanowski, 1993) students makethe decisions or if they make the decision with someone, their decisioncarries more weight. Rarely is the teacher the sole decision maker. Someteachers choose to relinquish control of more aspects of the portfolio to thestudents as the school year progresses. During the first semester the stu-dent might have one quarter of the input and the teacher three quarters,while during the second semester, the student would have three quarters ofthe input and the teacher one quarter (Stowell & Tierney, 1995).

Portfolios are generally a part of the final grade (Kolanowski, 1993).Some teachers tie the analysis to the report card and others revise the reportcard. Where the portfolio has taken the place of the report card, analysisoccurred four or six times a year. Most portfolios are analyzed once a year.Some middle schools have a portfolio day at the end of the year in whichthey invite community members to listen to students present their portfo-lios.

ID Student-led conferencesStudents have been encouraged to take part in their own assessment

and are now being asked to take part in sharing the information as well.Reflecting on one's performance can be a powerful learning experience asproved by portfolios. Young adolescents have sufficient metacognitive abil-ity to realize what they do and do not understand (Flavell & Wellman,1977). They also are more aware of their own perspectives when confrontedwith different perspectives. Therefore student-led conferences can offer a

145 132


powerful learning experience as well as demonstrate to the student that hisor her voice in valued in the assessment process.

Successful student-led conferences require a great deal of prepara-tion on the part of students and teacher. Class meetings, journals, confer-ences with peers, self-evaluations, and portfolios can be used with studentsto prepare. One school (Denby, 1996) which implemented student-led con-ferences found that students felt more ownership of their work, were lessinterested in teacher approval and more interested in the pride derived fromtheir own work, felt more accountable for their behavior and academicwork, gave teachers feedback on their work, and even began to devise strat-egies for improvement during the conference. Parents also tried to helpstudents develop strategies that they could do at home together (p. 379).Once a conference is complete, all parties may also be invited to reflect inwriting on the experience.

Assessment and equityWith an increasingly diverse population entering our schools, issues

of equity cannot be overlooked. We know that the background knowledgeand experiences children bring to the classroom are critical to their learn-ing and the assessment of it. Current assessment practices are not provid-ing all students the opportunity to demonstrate their knowledge (NCTM,1995). Cultural biases do exist in achievement and IQ tests, and resultsmust be interpreted with an awareness of these biases (Worthen &Spandel,1991). While the tests are intended to give teachers information about astudent's learning, they are generally used as sorting mechanisms (Nieto,1992). Alternative means of assessment provide one answer. When assess-ing English learners it is important to distinguish between how well a stu-dent functions in social settings and academic settings (Schlam and Cafetz,1997). Time is also a key factor in assessing students from different cul-tural and linguistic backgrounds and, as suggested before, portfolios canserve well in this capacity (Brandt, 1990).

Conclusion ID

Few issues in education get more attention (and more press) than assess-ment. Media reports inevitably leave out much of the complexity of assess-ing and reporting student achievement. It is up to educators to provide amore complete picture to students, parents, and the community they serve.Middle level teachers need to be clear about their purposes for using as-

1461 5 3


sessment tools, the right tool for the right task, assessment language, andcommunicating assessment information. Assessment guidelines which arelinked to what we currently know about adolescent development will servestudents and teachers most effectively. More research is needed on authen-tic assessment in middle school classrooms and its impact on teachers andstudents. El

ReferencesAirasian, P. W. (1989). Classroom assessment and educational improvement.

In L. W. Anderson (Ed.), The effective teacher (pp. 333-342). New York: Random

House.

Atwell, N. (1987) In the middle. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Brandt, R. (1990). On assessment in the arts: A conversation with Howard

Gardner. Educational Leadership, 47 (6), 24-29.

Brown, C.S. (1994) Connecting with the past: History workshop in middle

and high schools. Portsmouth: Heinemann.Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development (1989). Turning points: Pre-


Charles, C.M. (1995) Introduction to educational research. White Plains,NY: Longman

Collins, K., & Romberg, T. A. (1991). Assessment of mathematical perfor-

mance: An analysis of open ended test itern. In M.C. Wittrock and E. Baker (Eds.),

Testing and cognition (pp. 5-16). Englewood Cliffs: New Jersey: Prentice Hall.Cooper, C.R., & Odell, L. (1977) Evaluating writing. Urbana, IL: NCTE.Denby, J. (1996) Colegio Bolivar enters a new era in parent/teacher confer-

ences. Phi Delta Kappan, 77 (5), 378-379.Epstein, J. L., & Mac Iver, D.J. (1990) Education in the middle grades:

National practices and trends. Columbus, Ohio: National Middle School Associa-

tion.

Erickson, E. (1968) Youth, identity and crisis. New York: Norton.

Flavell, J., & Wellman, H. (1997). Metamemory. In R.V. Kail & J. W. Hagen

(Eds.), Perspective on the development of memory and cognition. Hillsdale, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum.

Genishi, C. (1989) Observing the second language learner. An example ofteachers' learning. Language Arts, 66 (5), 509-515.

George, PS., Stevenson, C., Thomason, J., Beane, J. (1992). The middleschool-and beyond. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum

Development.

154147


George, P. S. & Alexander, W.M. (1993) The exemplary middle school. Fort

Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Hamayan, E., Kwait, J., & Perlman, R. (1985) The identification and assess-

ment of language minority students: A handbook for educators. Arlington Heights,IL: Illinois Resource Center.

Kolanowski, K. (1993). Use of porolios in assessment of literature learn-ing. Albany, NY: Center for the Study of Literature.

Krashen, S., & Terrel, T. D. (1983) The natural approach: Language acqui-

sition in the classroom. New York: Oxford/Alemany.

International Reading Association and National Council of Teachers of En-glish. (1994) Standards for the assessment of reading and writing. Urbana, IL:NCTE: Author.

Lamme, L., & Hysmith, C. (1991). One school's adventure into portfolioassessment. Language Arts, 68 (8). 620-629.

Mac Iver, D.J. (1990). A national description of report card entries in themiddle grades. CDS Report 9. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Center forResearch on Effective Schooling for Disadvantaged Students.

Mathematical Sciences Educational Board. (1993). Measuring what counts:A conceptual guide for mathematics assessment. Washington, DC: Author.

Messick, R.G., & Reynolds, K.E.. (1992) Middle level curriculum. New York:

Longman.

Meyer, C.A. (1992). What is the difference between authentic and perfor-mance assessment? Educational Leadership, 49 (8), 39.

National Council on Teaching Mathematics. (1995). Assessment standardsfor school mathematicians. Reston, VA: Author.

National Middle School Association (1995). This we believe: Developmen-tally responsive middle level schools. Columbus, OH: Author.

National Center for Improving Science Education. (1990) Assessment in sci-

ence education: The middle years. Washington, DC and Colorado Springs, CO:The Network and the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study.

Nieto, S. (1992) Affirming diversity: The sociopolitical context ofmulticultural education. New York: Longman.

Pate, P. E., Homestead, E., McGinnis, K. (1993). Designing rubrics for au-thentic assessment. Middle School Journal, 25 (2), 25-27.

Paulson, L. F., Paulson, P.R., & Meyer, C.A. (1991). What makes a portfolio

a portfolio? Educational Leadership, 60-65

Pole, C.J. (1993). Assessing and recording achievement: Implementing anew approach in school. New York: Routledge.

Riding, R. & Butterfield, S. (Eds.). (1990) Assessment and examination insecondary schools. New York: Routledge

148

155


Rhodes, L. K., & Shank lin, N. (1993). Windows into literacy: Assessing learn-

ers K-8. Portsmouth: Heinemann.Romberg, T.A., Wilson, L., Khaketla, M., & Chavarria, S. (1992). Curricu-

lum and test alignment. In T.A. Romber (Ed.), Mathematics assessment and evalu-

ation: Imperatives for mathematics educators. (pp. 61-74) Albany, NY:SUNY.

Routman, R. (1991). Invitations. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Saul, W., Reardon, J., Schmidt, A., Pearce, C., Blackwook, D., & Bird, M.

D. (1993) Science workshop. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Schlam, L., & Cafetz, S. (1997) Using portfolios with language minority

students. In R. Weiner & J. Cohen (Eds.), Literacy porolios. Englewood Cliffs,New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Stevenson,.C. (1992) Teaching ten to fourteen year olds. New York: Longman.

Stiggins, R. (1992). Facing the challenge of a new era of educational assess-

ment. Applied Measurement in Education, 4 (4), 263-274.Stowell, L., & Tierney, R.J. (1995). Portfolios in the classroom: What hap-

pens when teachers and student negotiate assessment? In R. Allington & S.Walmsley (Eds.), No quick fix (pp.78-94). New York: Teachers College Press.

Stowell, L., & Tierney, R.J. (1991). An ongoing examiniation of teachershifts in thinking and practices in assessment: Porolios across the disciplines inhigh school classrooms. Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University, Technical

Report for Apple, Inc.Tierney, R.J. (1994). Learner-based assessment: Making evaluation fit with

teaching and learning. In L.M. Morrow, J.K. Smith, & L.C. Wilkinson (Eds.), In-

tegrated language arts: Controversy to consensus (pp. 231-240). Boston: Allyn &

Bacon.

Tierney, R.J., Carter, M., & Desai, L.E.. (1991). Porolio assessment in thereading-writing classroom. Christopher Gordon Publishers.

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment (1992). Testing in Ameri-

can schools: Asking the right questions, OTA-SET-519. Washington, DC: U.S Gov-

ernment Printing Office.Valencia, S.W., & Pearson, P.D. (1990). National survey of the use of test

data for educational decision making. Reading Research and Education CenterTechnical Report. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana.

Valencia, S.W., & Pearson, P.D. (1986) New models for reading assessment.

Center for the Study of Reading Education, No. 71. Champaign, IL: University of

Illinois at Champaign-Urbana.Valencia, S. W., McGinley, W., & Pearson, P.D. (1990) Assessing reading

and writing. In G. Duffy (Ed.), Reading in the middle school (pp. 124-153) New-

ark, DE: International Reading Association.

149 156


Webb, N. L. (1992). Assessment of students' knowledge of mathematics:Steps toward a theory. In D.A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathemat-

ics teaching and learning (pp. 661-683). New York: Macmillan.

Webb, N., & Romber, T.A. (1992). Implications of the NCTM standards formathematics assessment. In T.A. Romber (Ed.), Mathematics assessment and evalu-

ation: Imperatives for mathematics educators (pp. 37-60) Albany, NY: SUNY.Wheelock, A., & Dornan, G. (1988). Before its too late: Dropout prevention

in the middle grades. Carrboro, N.C.: Center for Early Adolescence; Boston: Mas-

sachusetts Advocacy Center.

Wiggins, G. (1991). Standards, not standardization: Evoking quality student

work. Educational Leadership, 48 (5), 18-26.

Wiggins, G. (1993). Assessment: Authenticity, context, and validity. Phi Delta

Kappan, 75 (3), 200-214.

Wiggins, G. (1994) Toward better report cards. Educational Leadership, 52(2), 28-37.

Winograd, P., & Paris, S. (1988) Improving reading assessment. The HeathTranscripts. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath.

Wolf, D. (1989) Portfolio assessment: Sampling student work. EducationalLeadership, 46 (7), 35-39.

Worthen, B., Borg, W., & White, K. (1993) Measurement and evalution inthe schools. New York: Longman.

Worthen , B. R., & Spandel, B. (1991). Putting the standardized test debatein perspective. Educational Leadership. 65-71.

Zessoules, R,. & Gardner, H. (1991). Authentic assessment: Beyond thebuzzword and into the classroom. In V. Perone (Ed.), Expanding student assess-ment (pp. 47-71). Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

1150

John H. Swaim and C. Kenneth McEwin

Competitive Sports Program

The agenda for middle level education is clear. Simply stated, middlelevel schools should focus on creating teaching and learning envi-ronments that are developmentally appropriate for young adoles-

cents. Although much remains to be accomplished, significant gains havebeen made in the last 25 years toward accomplishing this goal. Increas-ingly, decisions regarding middle school programs and practices are beingmade based on the developmental needs and interests of young adolescents(McEwin, Dickinson, & Jenkins, 1996). Too often, however, these effortshave been centered primarily on the academic program, while co-curricu-lar programs, such as competitive sports, continue to follow practices whichrevert back to those designed for older adolescents and adults.

Virtually all senior high schools, and approximately 80% of middlelevel schools offer organized competitive sports programs (Berryman, 1988;McEwin, Dickinson, & Jenkins, 1996). The belief that participation in theseprograms enhances social, psychological, physiological, and motor devel-opment is widely accepted. However, this belief has been increasingly ques-tioned when trends in injury rates, psychological stress, and unqualifiedadult leadership are considered (Goldman, 1990; McEwin & Dickinson,1996; Micheli, 1990; Micheli & Jenkins, 1990; Smith, Zane, Smoll &Coppol, 1983). These problem areas are diminishing the potential benefitsthat could come from such programs under appropriate circumstances(Seefeldt, Ewing, & Walk, 1993). What research says regarding these andrelated issues is reviewed below.

151158


[:11 Sports Injuries U

Due to the stage of physical development young adolescents are experi-encing, they are predisposed to injuries (Micheli, 1990; Smith, 1986). Thesusceptibility of young adolescents to injuries is evident considering thatone-third of all sports injuries occur in children and young adolescentsages 5 to 14 (Findley, 1987). An estimated 4,000,000 children and adoles-cents seek emergency room treatment for sports injuries each year with anadditional 8,000,000 being treated by family physicians (Micheli, 1990).Significant numbers of these injuries occur in school-sponsored sports pro-grams. Thirty percent of all injuries to children and youth which occur inand around schools result from participation in sports activities (Children'sSafety Network, 1994).

According to estimates from the United States Consumer ProductSafety Commission, sports injuries sustained by 5 to 14 year olds increasedsignificantly from 1990 to 1994. The report shows that injuries in soccerincreased by an estimated 10,000. During one year alone (1993), 38%(56,621) of soccer injuries occurred to young adolescents between the agesof 10 and 14. Also, during 1993, three fatalities of young adolescents werereported as a result of playing soccer. The report also found that football,the sport with the highest incidence of injuries in organized sports, increasedby an estimated 15,000 between 1990 and 1994. However, baseball had thehighest reported increase during this time period with 26,000 injuries (Carey,1995; U. S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 1990, 1995).

The statistics presented above are based on the number of sports inju-ries which were treated in hospital emergency rooms. For example, of the460,000 baseball-related injuries treated in hospital emergency rooms dur-ing 1993, 28% (119,280) were to 10 to 14 year olds. Other sports such aswrestling, gymnastics, and basketball are also among the sports where thelargest number of injuries to young adolescents occurred (Garrick, 1988;Goldburg, 1989; Herndon, 1988; Smith, 1986; Taft, 1991; U. S. ConsumerProduct Safety Commission, 1995).

Young adolescents participating in contact sports are particularly atrisk for being injured because growth is still occurring in the long bones.The cartilage at the end of these bones is two to three times weaker thanbones that are not growing. Thus injury to these vulnerable areas may causeone limb to grow longer than another and/or grow crooked, or stop grow-ing altogether (Stark, 1993).

Injuries caused by contact in practices and games are not the onlyinjuries resulting from participation in middle level organized sports pro-

152

159

COMPETITIVE SPORTS PROGRAM

grams. Overuse injuries, which are the result of repetitive microtramas (re-peated small injuries), have become a serious problem in this age group.These injuries are frequently the result of young adolescents engaging inrepetitive activities for which their muscles, tendons, ligaments, and bonesare unprepared to withstand for long or intense periods of time. These kindsof injuries (e. g., stress fractures, tendonitis, shin splints) are intensified byfactors such as overtraining, long playing seasons, and speciality sportscamps. Damage caused by these injuries is often painful, and permanentand can lead to problems in later life (Fox, Jebson, & Orwin, 1995; Herndon,1988; Poinsett, 1996; Rosenthal, 1993; Taft, 1991).

Psychological Considerations Li

There can be many positive psychological benefits for young adolescentsas a result of participating in sports programs which enhance their self-esteem and increase their interest in sports. However, when young adoles-cent needs and interests become secondary to pressures and unreasonableexpectations from coaches, parents, the community, and even themselves,sports often have the opposite effect. Young adolescents may begin to loseconfidence in themselves as athletes which can lead to losing interest inparticipating in middle level sports. Even though psychological effects ofsports are difficult to determine, young adolescents' psychological well-being should be a priority in developing middle level sports programs(Vaughan, 1984).

Li Readiness to participateJust as being aware of young adolescents' physical readiness to par-

ticipate in organized competitive sports is crucial, so is their emotionalreadiness. It is common for organized sports competition to start as early asthe preschool years with more than 20 million children ages 6 to 14 beinginvolved in community-based, volunteer-directed youth sports programs(Boal, 1996; Smith, 1986). A problem with involving children and youngadolescents in sports competition before they are physically or psychologi-cally ready is that the play aspect is often eliminated, and regimented prac-tices are substituted which instill the need to excel rather than have fun.Organized sports should not be overemphasized to the degree that the psy-chological readiness levels of young adolescents are overlooked.

160153


LI Cutting young adolescents from participationResearch indicates that being eliminated from participation has nega-

tive effects on many young adolescents. However, many middle schoolsinclude "cut policies" in their sports programs. When young adolescentsare cut from sports, they not only lose the benefits of developing the physi-cal skills needed to play that sport, but also opportunities for spending timewith their peers and for gaining confidence in their ability to play a particu-lar sport. It is common for students who have been cut not to try out againfor a sports team because of the fear of being cut again (Ogilvie, 1988;Or lick & Broterill, 1978).

0 Emphasis on winningCompetition is a reality in our society and, in fact, can be healthy

when kept in proper perspective. Too often, however, the pressure to winpermeates middle level competitive sports. The need to "win at all costs" isan all too common message given to young adolescents by peers, coaches,parents, and community members as well as collegiate and professionalathletes and the press (Coop & Rote Ila, 1991). These messages are in directconflict with the reasons most young adolescents participate in sports. Thesereasons frequently include having fun, being accepted as members of agroup, the freedom of physical expression, and feeling successful, none ofwhich requires highly stressful competition (Ogilvie, 1988). In fact, prima-rily focusing on winning negates many of the positive aspects which canbe gained and fails to fulfill the purposes for which young adolescents gointo sports in the first place.

Expectations from adultsParents who vicariously attempt to live their lives through the "sports

careers" of their children, and coaches and others who have unrealisticallyhigh expectations which go beyond the physical and psychological capa-bilities of young adolescents are frequently the source of much of the stressassociated with middle level sports (Fortanasce, 1995; Ogilvie, 1988). Par-ents and coaches might be the single most direct source of pressure placedon young adolescents in sports, but there is also a collective pressure that isbrought to bear by the community. In comparison with community spon-sored sports, school sports are usually more intense, instructional, com-petitive, and visible (e. g., number of practices/games, longer seasons, postseason games) (Seefeldt, Ewing & Walk, 1993). These, and related factors,result in games being highly publicized and the outcomes being the subjectof much discussion in communities. This discussion often focuses on which

161 154


individual or team won, and as noted by Seefeldt "community patrons areseldom rational consumers of sport" (p. 25).

1:1 Attrition in Sports Li

The majority of youth drop out of sports programs by age 15. It has beenestimated that 35% of youth drop out of sports each year and that 50% dropout by age 12 (Gould, 1987; Poinsett, 1996; Seefeldt, Ewing, & Walk, 1993).When it is considered that this represents only those who have chosen toparticipate in sports and does not include those who have never partici-pated or were cut from sports programs, these figures become even moresignificant.

Today's young adolescents occupy their leisure time in a variety ofways other than sports. The emergence of new interests is one reason youngadolescents drop out of sports. Other reasons include: (a) lack of playingtime; (b) the way practices are conducted; (c) interactions with teammates;(d) dislike of coaches; (e) a feeling of unworthiness; (f) not having fun; and(g) needing additional time to study. These reasons apply to all sports, butthe largest numbers of dropouts are in basketball, football, soccer, and trackand field (Ewing & Seefelt, 1989; Gould, 1987; Holm, 1996; Rote lla,Hanson, & Coop, 1991; Seefeldt, Ewing, & Walk, 1993).

Typically the type of young adolescents who are eliminated or dropout of sports are the ones who are poor performers (e.g., later maturingboys or those who do not show enough aggression). However, gifted ath-letes are also sometimes negatively effected when they are forced to spe-cialize in one sport in which they have demonstrated talent or are placedunder excessively high expectations by coaches, peers, and others (Lin-coln, 1982; Stover, 1988). When these youth are continually pushed to bemore competitive and to participate in intense practices, they begin to "burn-out" and sometimes decide to leave sports.

1:1 The Reality of Chances of Becoming IDCollege and/or Professional Athletes

Although it is appropriate to encourage young adolescents to be dedicatedto realizing their potential in sports, it is clear that many youth have mis-taken idealistic views of their chances of receiving college scholarships ormaking it to the professional sports league level. In reality, only a verysmall number of varsity high school players receivg cAlIege sports scholar-

155 1 4


ships. Although 59% of high school basketball and football players believethey will receive college scholarships, only about 1% do (Benedetto, 1990).Furthermore, of the approximately 150,000 high school seniors who playvarsity basketball each year, only about 3% receive scholarships (Stacy,1990).

The chances of becoming a professional athlete are almost nonexist-ent. For example, the odds against a high school football player, let alonea middle school football player, making it to the pros are 10,000 to 1(.0001%) (Benedetto, 1990). The chances of receiving a professional sportscontract in baseball are 5,000 to 1 (.0002%) (Dorsey, 1989), and the chances.

of playing professional basketball is 2,344 to 1 (.0004%) (Stacy, 1990).The purpose of this kind of information should not be to discourage

athletes with potential, but to help them have realistic expectations abouttheir future in college and professional sports. The focus of middle levelcompetitive sports should be on helping young adolescents set goals thatreflect their current interests and abilities. This focus will make it easier forthem to emphasize improvement rather than focus on the highly competi-tive aspects of sports which frequently pit one athlete against another.

[-.3 What Role Should Competitive Sports Play Ciin the Lives of Young Adolescents?

Despite the many problems associated with organized sports programs foryoung adolescents, there are many potential benefits to be gained if com-petitive sports programs are based on developmentally responsive ideasand practices. Some of these potential benefits include: (a) enhanced fit-ness levels; (b) increased self-esteem; (c) appreciation for fitness; (d) thesense of belonging to a team or group; (e) enhanced social development;and, (f) providing community identity (Seefeldt, Ewing, & Walk, 1993).

Clearly competitive sports programs are popular with young adoles-cents with the most frequently offered middle school interscholastic sportsfor boys being basketball (82%), track (70%), football (56%), wrestling(41%), cross country (30%), and soccer (24%). Most frequently offered forgirls are basketball (81%), track (70%), volleyball (57%), cross country(30%), softball (29%), and soccer (22%) (McEwin, Dickinson, & Jenkins,1996). The popularity of ayarticular sport among young adolescents andthe public, however, does not necessarily mean it is in the best interests ofyoung adolescents to offer that sport at the middle school level (e. g., foot-ball, wrestling). Some difficult and courageous decisions regarding which

163 156


sports should be played at the middle school level and what the rules andconditions for these sports should be need careful examination by those indecision-making positions.

Middle level sports programs which are developmentally inappropri-ate in many middle schools need and deserve immediate attention becausethe health and welfare of many thousands young adolescents are at stake.To turn away blindly from the problem areas associated with middle levelcompetitive sports programs is irresponsible. Ethically, all school-spon-sored activities are the responsibility of those decision makers who deter-mine the nature of all school programs and practices. Changes such as thefollowing can help assure that middle level competitive sports are saferand more developmentally appropriate for young adolescents: (a) improvedcoaching; (b) proper conditioning; (c) proper competitive environment; (d)rule changes; (e) improved supervision; (f) better matching of players; and,(g) proper equipment use (Goldberg, 1989).

Developmentally responsive middle level competitive sports programscan be an important part of the middle school curriculum. As with othermiddle school components (e. g., interdisciplinary team organization,teacher-based guidance programs, integrated curriculum), much studyshould precede changes, and implementation should be thoroughly plannedand carefully implemented. The study process should directly address someof the issues discussed in this section and be extended to include othertopics not included because of space limitations (e. g., use of unqualifiedcoaches, legal liability issues, exclusion of youth with special needs). Onlywhen these issues are resolved and middle level competitive sports pro-grams are altered to become developmentally responsive will the manypotential benefits of carefully planned sports programs be realized by largenumbers of young adolescents. 1_7

ReferencesBenedetto, W. (1990, December 10). Pro career just a dream for most kids.

USA Today, 13A.

Berryman, J. (1988). The rise of highly organized sports for preadolescent

boys. In F. Smoll, R. Magill, & M. Ash (Eds.), Children in sport (pp. 3-18).Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics Publishers.

Boal, J. (1996, August 12). To grow up right, we all must make time forplaying: Even world's top athletes say they got into sports for fun. Columbus Dis-

patch, C3.

Carey, A. (1995, August 16). Doctor seeks to avert overuse injuries to chil-dren in sports. Union Recorder, pp. 1B-2B.

157 164


Children's Safety Network (1994). Injuries in the environment: A resourcepacket. Newton, MA: Author.

Coop, R. H., & Rote lla, R. J. (1991). Sport and physical skill development in

elementary schools: An overview. The Elementary School Journal, 91 (5), 409-412.

Dorsey, V. L. (1989, August 3). If wood can't make bat grade, it might be-come "fishStunner." USA Today, 3C.

Ewing, M. E., & Seefeldt, V. (1989). Participation and attrition patterns in

American agency-sponsored and interscholastic sports: An executive summary.North Palm Beach, FL: Sporting Goods Manufacturer's Association.

Findley, S. (1987, October 5). Breaks of the game. U. S. News and WorldReport, 75.

Fortanasce, V. M. (1995). Life lessons from Little League: A guide for par-

ents and coaches. New York: Doubleday.

Fox, G. M., Jebson, J. L., & Orwin, J. F. (1995). Overuse injuries of theelbow. The Physician and Sports Medicine, 23 (8), 58-66.

Garrick, J. G. (1988). Epidemiology of sports injuries in the pediatric ath-lete. In J. A. Sullivan, & W. A. Grana (Eds.), The pediatric athlete (pp. 123-132).

Park Ridge, IL: American Academy of Orthopaedic surgeons.

Goldberg, B. (1989). Injury patterns in youth sports. The Physician andSportsmedicine, 89 (17), 175-184.

Goldman, J. (1990). Who's calling the plays? The School Administrator, 90(11), 8-16.

Gould, D. (1987). Understanding attrition in children's sport. In D. Gould &

M. Weiss (Eds.), Advances in pediatric sport sciences: Behavioral issues (pp. 61-85). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Herndon, W. A. (1988). Injuries to the head, neck, and spine. The pediatric

athlete (pp. 134-144). Park Ridge, IL: American Academy of Orthopaedic Sur-geons.

Holm, H. L. (1996). Sport participation and withdrawal: A developmentalmotivational commentary. Research in Middle Level Education Quarterly, 19 (3),41-61.

Lincoln, C. E. (1982). The Nadia syndrome: Child athletes pushed into per-

manent injury. In T. G. George (Ed.), American Health, 1 (2), 50-54.

McEwin, C. K., & Dickinson, T. S. (1996). Placing young adolescents atrisk in interscholastic sports programs. Clearing House, 69 (4), 217-221.

McEwin, C. K., Dickinson, T. S, & Jenkins, D. M. (1996). America's middle

schools: Practices and progress A 25 year perspective. Columbus, OH: Na-tional Middle School Association.

Micheli, L. (1990, October, 29). Children and sports. Newsweek, 12.

158

165


Micheli, L., & Jenkins, M. (1990). Sportwise: An essential guide for youngathletes, coaches, and parents. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Ogilvie, B. C. (1988). The role of pediatric sports medicine specialist inyouth sports. In J. A. Sullivan, & W. A. Grana (Eds.), The pediatric athlete (pp. 81-

89). Park Ridge, IL: American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons.

Orlick, T., & Broterill, C. (1978). Why eliminate kids? In R. Martens (Ed.),

Joy and sadness in children's sports (pp. 145-151). Champaign, IL: Human Kinet-ics.

Poinsett, A. (1996). The role of sports in youth development. New York:Carnegie Corporation.

Rosenthal, E. (1993, Summer). Sidelined. Ladies' Home Journal Parents'Digest, 51-53.

Rotella, J., Hanson, T., & Coop, R. H. (1991). Burnout in youth sports, TheElementary School Journal, 91 (5), 421-428.

Seefeldt, V., Ewing, M., & Walk, S. (1993). Overview of youth sports pro-grams in the United States. NY: Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development.

Smith, N. J. (1986). Is that child ready for competitive sports? Contempo-rary Pediatrics, 86 (3), 30-54.

Smith, R., Zane, N., Smoll, F., & Coppol, D. (1983). Behavioral assessment

in youth sports: Coaching behaviors and children's attitudes. Medicine and Sci-ence in Sports and Exercise, 83 (15), 208-214.

Stacy, J. (1990, March 21). USA snapshots: Trying to beat the odds. USAToday, 3C.

Stark, E. (1983). Growing Pains. Science, 83 (3), 88-89.

Stover, D. (1988). What to do when grown-ups want to spoil the fun ofschool sports, The American School Board Journal, 175 (7), 10-22.

Taft, T. N. (1991). Sports injuries in children. Elementary School Journal,91 (5), 429-435.

United States Product Consumer Safety Commission (1991). National elec-

tronic injury surveillance system product summary report: Injury estimates for thecalendar year 1990. Washington, DC: Author

United States Product Consumer Safety Commission (1995). National elec-

tronic injury surveillance system product summary report: Injury estimates for thecalendar year 1990. Washington, DC: Author.

Vaughan, L. K. (1984). Psychological impact of organized sports on chil-dren. In L. J. Micheli (Ed.), Pediatric and adolescent sports medicine (pp.144-166) Boston: Little, Brown and Company.

166159

RRRRRRRRIkRRRARRRENWR1 olk at!, KR

Rg IgAXS RR

Ut

,amWWWW&RORRMRR4kiR

Toepfer

Vars

Brazee

Beane

Powell

Faircloth

Curriculum

Conrad F. Toepfer, Jr.State University of New YorkBuffalo, New York

Gordon F. VarsKent State UniversityKent, Ohio

Edward BrazeeUniversity of MaineOrono, Maine

James BeaneNational-Louis UniversityMadison, Wisconsin

Richard R. PowellTexas Tech UniversityLubbock, Texas

C. Victoria FairclothWestern Carolina UniversityCullowhee, North Carolina

16

Conrad F. Toepfer, Jr.

Middle Level Curriculum'sSerendipitous History

The establishment of junior high schools made the United States thefirst western nation with an intervening educational focus betweenelementary and high school. In this chapter, I review how curricu-

lum specific to that level emerged. As with curriculum at all levels, middlelevel curriculum has had to cope with Alexander's (1973) concern.

So many educators know so little about curriculum planningbut keep trying to reinvent the 'curriculum wheel.' These effortsby people poorly informed of the history and practice in thecurriculum field really end up only rediscovering the same oldruts in the road. p. 3

Educators do, indeed, tend to be ambiguous about the definition ofcurriculum, often confusing curriculum content with approaches to its de-livery. If the purpose of the school is learning, curriculum focuses the ef-fort to carry out that purpose. Mamchur's (1990) definition is helpful inbeginning that consideration.

Curriculum is the tool, the ' stuff' of education. Through the cur-riculum, students learn the skills, the attitudes, and the knowl-edge they need. Curriculum is a vehicle, a device. ---- p. 634

CI In the beginningThe events that led to the establishment of junior high schools did not

focus on curricular needs. In the 1890s, Harvard University PresidentCharles Eliot (1898) led the reorganization of the American elementaryand secondary structure from an 8-4 to a 6-6 balance. Maintaining that

163168


seventh and eighth grade students were ready to study secondary schoolcontent, his goal was to shorten elementary school so that seventh and eighthgrade students could study secondary school content in a high school envi-ronment. The Committee on College Entrance Requirements (National Edu-cation Association, 1899) endorsed this recommendation and concludedthat:

In our opinion it is now important that the last two grades thatnow precede the high school course should be incorporated intoit, and wherever practicable, the instruction in those two gradesshould be given under the supervision of the high school teacher.

p. 659

By 1900, American school districts were shifting to six elementaryand six secondary grades. However, at the beginning of the twentieth cen-tury, American education was delivered through a dual system of elemen-tary and secondary schools. Educational purposes then were framed by therealities of the demands of life and opportunities for students when theyleft the school system. In 1900, approximately twenty percent of studentscompleted high school.

Students lacking in intellectual ability and those with inadequate in-terest in study would leave school for the work force when they reachedthe appropriate age. Many others who possessed such intellectual abilityand initiative but lacked financial resources also left school early. An earlyjunior high school goal was to hold more students in school through gradenine.

The Committee on the Equal Division of the Twelve Years in thePublic Schools Between the District and the High School (National Educa-tion Association, 1907) was concerned about the need to hold students inschool longer. They recommended subdividing the six year high schoolinto two equal school units, thus establishing the junior high school.

Change should be made in the present six-year high school. Thatis particularly important for students able to pursue their gen-eral education beyond the primary school. The high school oughtto be subdivided into two administrative sections: (1) a juniorhigh school of three years extending from the twelfth to the fif-teenth year; and, (2) a senior high school also of three years,covering the period from the fifteenth year to the eighteenth year

p. 27

The administrative subdivision established the notion of junior highschool as a "miniature high school." Thus, the initial junior high school

164

1 6 9

MIDDLE LEVEL CURRICULUM'S SERENDIPITOUS HISTORY

lacked an educational identity separate from high school. This lack of iden-tity hindered early efforts to identify and focus upon unique junior highstudent learning needs (Toepfer, 1962).

Douglass (1916) felt it important that junior high school curriculummake a shift in focus to the unique needs of young adolescents. Judd (1918)saw the evolution of the junior high school as a unique opportunity for thenation to develop more democratic schools. Van Denburg (1922) recom-mended that junior high schools "develop their own rationale and regimenrather than imitating or modifying high school practices" (p. 37). The needto define a clear middle level curriculum identity has persisted. Thirty-eight years later Tompkins (1960) again raised the central premise for thejunior high school's existence.

Do early adolescents, 11 to 14, and later adolescents, 15-19,generally have systematic differences? If they do, then it is es-sential that schools serve the educational, social, and emotionalneeds of youth. If there is no difference (how anyone can creditthat viewpoint psychologically is difficult to comprehend), thenit really doesn't matter whether we have junior high schools ornot. p. 44

Psychologist G. Stanley Hall (1905) initially noted the differences ineducational needs of young adolescents from older students. In 1908, theColumbus, Ohio schools built a separate grade 7-9 school. Opening in Sep-tember, 1909, the Indianola Junior High School became the nation's firstjunior high school (Shawan, 1910). In January, 1910, the Berkeley Califor-nia schools introduced a similar program known as the Introductory HighSchool.

The curriculum model in both programs was subject centered. Thegrades seven and eight curriculum offered English, history, geography,mathematics, drawing, music and chorus, beginning French or Germanforeign language, cooking and sewing (for girls), manual arts (for boys).

Berkeley also offered Spanish to students, and both schools allowed"advanced" students to take Latin instead of modern languages. Elemen-tary science and principles of algebra were added in grade nine. Wide pro-mulgation of the Columbus and Berkeley programs increased national ef-forts to develop junior high programs around those curriculum areas.

It is interesting that more than a decade before the subdivision of thesix secondary grades into a junior and senior high school, that one commu-nity made the changes later heralded in Columbus and Berkeley. Bennett(1919) briefly noted that in 1896, Richmond, Indiana, had a three year

165 170


school program separate from the local elementary and high school.Toepfer (1962) searched Board of Education minutes and other pri-

mary sources in Richmond to find a program that had been instituted in1896 (Study, 1897). More remarkably, in 1886 all of the city's grade sevenand eight students were moved to Richmond's Garfield School. Garfieldstudents had regular physical training classes (Study, 1891) in addition to acurriculum that included everything Columbus and Berkeley offered 12and 13 years later.

The Garfield program also developed a unique curriculum functionprior to the development of school guidance and counseling that today wouldbe considered a teacher-advisory program. The principal coined the term"homeroom" to describe it (Heironimus, 1917).

The teacher of each room of the first period in the morning holdstheir pupils responsible for conduct, attendance, study, and gen-eral attitude throughout the day and out of class. The teacher isexpected to be the guide, advisor, and friend to whom the pupilmay come at any time on any pretext or need. While primarily apart of the disciplinary organization, the homeroom providesopportunity for the advisor to relate to those students in a non-instructional setting and it has become inspirational and direc-tive. p. 91

Baker (1913) discussed the need for junior high schools "to bridgethe gap between elementary and secondary education" (p. 27). To the con-trary, Toepfer (1962) observed that the initial subdivision of the six sec-ondary grades not only continued that separation but initiated a gap be-tween junior and senior high school. This "bridging issue" continued to bea major curriculum articulation concern. Middle level curriculum must bemuch more than a conduit between elementary and high school. It is essen-tial that curriculum codify and give life to middle level education's pur-poses and functions.

Glass (1923a) first recognized the critical role middle level schoolsmust play in articulating programs across the district.

The primary role of the junior high school as a unit of transitionis articulation. Until the junior high school ceases to be regardedexclusively as an isolated unit of organization and experimen-tation, there cannot be that unanimity of mutual understandingwhich alone can bring the united efforts of elementary and sec-ondary education into focus as a concerted problem, not merelyof junior high school problems, but of the greater problems of

166


an articulated school system. p. 519-520

The Roman God Janus with two faces looking in opposite directions,symbolizes middle level education's dilemma. In addition to accommodat-ing the unique curriculum and learning instructional needs of young ado-lescents, its position between elementary and high schools makes middlelevel curriculum the critical link in district-wide curriculum articulation(Toepfer, 1986).

Unlike the focus of the college and university educators, most whostudied and worked with junior high schools at that time were interested incurriculum/instruction rather than school administration/organization. Amiddle level curricular identity began to emerge and the junior high schoolgained acceptance by 1920 and spread rapidly (Briggs, 1920).

The junior school is accepted in theory, and its possibilities haveproven so alluring that the movement for reorganization is wellunder way in both urban and rural districts. The physical redis-tribution of the grades seems assured; but if, having accom-plished that, schoolmen rest content, they will have missed theone great educational opportunity of their generation for realeducational reform. There is a demand for purposes so clearand cogent that they will result in new curricula, new courses ofstudy, new methods of teaching, and new social relationshipsin short, a new spirit which will make the intermediate years notonly worth while in themselves, but also an intelligent inspira-tion for every child to continue, as long as profitable, the educa-tion for which he is by inheritance best fitted. In its essence thejunior high school is a device of democracy whereby nurturemay cooperate with nature to secure the best results possiblefor each individual adolescent as well as for society at large.

p. 327

CI Junior high curriculum functions emergeThe common curriculum areas anchored the junior high school's gen-

eral education purpose. Calling English, mathematics, health, science, andsocial studies the "core of the curriculum" (p. 16), Glass (1924) reinforcedthe importance of maintaining the junior high school's general educationrole and resisted attempts to specialize education prior to the high school.Tryon, Smith, and Rood (1927) later noted:

The core curriculum is made up of those subjects which are im-portant enough to be offered in every grade of the junior high

167

172


school and which serve to give opportunity to the work donethroughout the system. p.101

Briggs (1920) saw the purpose of exploratory experiences as allow-ing students to "try-out" specific areas and interests to see what their inter-ests might be, particularly for students who might not move on to or com-plete high school. He viewed the curriculum purpose of exploratory expe-riences to:

...explore by means of material in itself worthwhile, the inter-ests, aptitudes, and capacities of the pupils, and at the sametime, to reveal by material otherwise justifiable, the possibili-ties of the major fields, both intellectual and academic.

p. 41-42

Koos (1927) saw junior high learning experiences as helping studentsdecide on areas of specialization they might select in high school.

There will be an opportunity for pupils to explore several fieldsto see where they fit; they will thus have a basis for making aselection when the time for specialization comes; in such a schoolit is possible in various ways to test each child and thereby findout what are his natural interests, his ambitions, and his ca-pacities. p.51

Glass (1923b) had the most expansive junior high exploratory cur-riculum vision.

The junior high school has been variously entitled as the find-ing, the sorting, the trying out and testing period of the publicschool system. It is a probationary period before the vital ques-tion of educational or vocational choice is finally determined.Exploration of individual differences, the revelation of educa-tional and vocational opportunities adaptable to individual dif-ferences, guidance of educational or vocational choice, equal-ization of opportunities, the adaptation of educational offeringsto ascertained individual needs rather than conforming of allpupils to one educational pattern, and the stimulation of educa-tional or vocational vision which conditions all progress in sec-ondary education, all these and other purposes to adapt the edu-cational program to the "individual" are objectives of the juniorhigh school. p. 20-21

During the next two decades, other junior high school functionsemerged. Gruhn & Douglas (1947) extensively discussed the curriculum

168173


implications of these six functions which they identified: articulation, dif-ferentiation, exploration, guidance, integration, and socialization.

ID Moving away from subject-centered curriculumDepartmentalization is a vestige from the era when early secondary

instructional procedures were modified later high school practices. It em-phasizes in-depth study by organizing learning within separated subjectareas. Departmentalization neither seeks to correlate or integrate learningamong different content areas nor does it facilitate collaborative interac-tion teachers need to plan and integrate learning across content areas.

Feldlaufer, Midgley, and Eccles (1987) found departmentalization tobe the least desirable pattern for organizing effective instruction in middlelevel grades. They identified that in grades 5 through 8, self-contained class-rooms provide more correlation of learning and learning opportunities thandepartmentalization. In that regard, clear advantages of self-contained ex-ist over departmentalized classrooms for young adolescents.

A number of junior high school curriculum options pioneered theemergence of broad-fields, social-problems, and emerging-needs curricu-lum approaches in American education. In the 1930s, junior high experi-ence-centered learning options that combined aspects from broad-fields,social-problems, and emerging needs curriculum approaches led to the de-velopment of core curriculum approaches for delivering common learn-ings. Faunce and Bossing (1951) identified the following characteristics ofcore courses:

We have listed four characteristics of core courses that distin-guish them from conventional subject-matter courses: (1) theirfreedom from subject-matter patterns and their emphasis uponvital problem situations; (2) their emphasis upon group prob-lem-solving; (3) their use of a long block of time; and, (4) theiremphasis on guidance by the classroom teacher. p. 86

In core curriculum options, Vars (1969) noted that block-time facili-tated "a unification of structure in the disciplines without the disciplineitself losing its identity" (p. 201). Block-time scheduling provided an ends-means continuum for effective implementation of core curriculum programs.Noar (1953) noted that:

The modern school is replacing the completely departmental-ized program with one which permits a block of time within whichunits of work cut across subject matter lines. p. 5

169

174


As junior high instructional approaches other than departmentaliza-tion began to spread, Van Til, Vars, and Lounsbury (1967) observed thefollowing:

Alternatives to departmentalized organization of instruction con-tinued to grow in the 1950s. In the 1950s in the composite jun-ior high school, the seventh grader found he had the same teacherlonger than a single period and that he stayed with the samegroup of fellow students for the larger part of the day. p. 56

CI The middle school concept emergesBy 1960, junior high developments suggested still further changes in

schools serving young adolescents. Medical data that documented the in-creasingly earlier onset of puberty further supported that rubric. Eichhorn(1966) used those data to develop a curriculum model which became cen-tral in defining what became known as the middle school concept. Theemergence of the middle school concept also initiated a nagging but mean-ingless "turf ' confrontation between some junior high and middle schooladvocates. Lasting in varying degrees through the 1970s, these confronta-tions, unfortunately, distracted particular efforts to refine middle level edu-cational initiatives. In 1981, Melton coined the term "middle level educa-tion" as a descriptor for all school programs between grades four and nine(Valentine, Clark, Nickerson, & Keefe, 1981).

Focused on young adolescent learning needs, the term succeeded inde-fusing the "junior high versus middle school" argument. Eichhorn's cur-riculum model (1966) was socio-analytically based in the physical, men-tal, social, and cultural characteristics of middle level school students. Lan-guage, mathematics, science, and social studies were organized under ananalytical unifying center. A physical-cultural unifying center brought to-gether cultural and fine arts with physical education. Eichhorn's model fea-tured inter- and cross-disciplinary instructional approaches consistent withyoung adolescent developmental and learning characteristics. Several othermiddle school curriculum models followed the Eichhorn one. They werealso based on the earlier onset of pubescence with more responsive cur-riculum options for young adolescent learners.

The Alexander model (Alexander, Williams, Compton, Hines, &Prescott, 1968) used three unifying centers. The first one, interrelated per-sonal development, related curriculum issues to individual interests in val-ues, health, and physical development. A skills for continued learning cen-ter dealt with curricular issues related to communication and problem-sl olv-

170

175


ing skills and an organized knowledge center dealt with the traditional rangeof middle level subject and content areas.

Moss (1969) developed a model based on a core curriculum approach.Traditional academic subject matter areas were centered on young adoles-cent problems of living. The arts center organized the areas of art, homeeconomics, industrial arts, and music. The third center was organized aroundhealth, physical fitness, and recreational concerns.

Later, Lounsbury & Vars (1978) presented a middle level curriculummodel featuring a core approach based on young adolescent personal-so-cial problems relating student sequential skill needs to content areas. It hada variable component that included exploratory areas, elective opportuni-ties, independent study options, enrichment opportunities, and student ac-tivity options.

Toepfer (1971) suggested three steps for differentiating middle levelcurriculum in such a manner.

/ . Identify and study the characteristics, needs, and develop-mental profiles of the emerging adolescent population in thelocal school-community setting.

2. Develop a curricular rationale which will implement and sup-port those needs within the local setting.

3. Organize and implement an administrative vehicle to spellout an appropriate design for the community's total elemen-tary, middle, and high school curriculum. p. 3

The middle school concept also extended concerns to refine earlierefforts to articulate curriculum horizontally among grade level subject ar-eas. Team teaching developed from and extended earlier junior high schoolcore curriculum approaches. As reported in the previous section, Faunceand Bossing (1951) noted that core curriculum "involves either a singleteacher for two or more periods or teams of teachers who work together"(p. 9). Vars (1969) concurred that team teaching developed from core cur-riculum approaches as another means for delivering articulated teachingand learning among content areas.

In the 1970s and 1980s, attention moved beyond what should be taughtto focus more on how that "what" might be taught. Unfortunately, someteaching teams focused on interdisciplinary units as the focus of instruc-tion. All too often, the theme, rather than what it is the students want orneed to learn in that unit, becomes the focus of the unit and teachers' plan-ning. When that occurs the goals and objectives can become subordinate tothe theme itself, especially if the theme and its content are selected and

171 176


planned by teachers with little or no input from students. That kind of inter-disciplinary planning achieves little real improvement over departmental-ized, subject-centered approaches.

Properly defined and organized, teaming can reduce and overcomeproblems experienced in departmentalized subject isolation. It may facili-tate the articulation and even integration of learning across subject areas(Toepfer, 1986). As in earlier successful core curriculum practice, the ini-tial concern of teaming should be the collaborative planning and develop-ment of programs for those students whom team members commonly teach.

To get beyond simple correlation, teaming should be considered incontent areas other than the so-called "academic" subjects. Middle levellearning experiences in areas such as art, home economics, industrial arts/technology, and music can be powerful sources of personal and intellectualgrowth (Toepfer, 1992). All content areas are academic, and lesser impor-tance or "second-class" citizenship for particular areas should be aban-doned.

Ci Toward integration of learningIn itself, interdisciplinary teaming is not necessarily a first step to

developing integrated curriculum options. Beane (1993) noted "interdisci-plinary teaming does not necessarily lead to interdisciplinary curriculumorganization" (p 33). Unfortunately, interdisciplinary planning has too fre-quently focused solely upon "how" to connect information in separatedsubject areas. Artificially forced connections make little sense to the learner.Meaningful curriculum articulation occurs when teachers use the interestsand previous learning of students to define a context for further learning.

Jacobs (1989) developed a basic integrated curriculum format thatfurther bridged earlier interdisciplinary efforts. Beane (1993) moved be-yond that suggesting "the centerpiece of the curriculum would consist ofthematic units whose organizing centers are drawn from the intersectingconcerns of early adolescents and issues of the larger world" (p. 68). Pur-suing the need to plan integrated learnings around learners' needs, inter-ests, and concerns he stated:

Curriculum planning in an integrative context begins with col-laborative discussion about young people's questions and con-cerns and identification of the themes they suggest. Once a themeand the related questions they suggest are clear, curriculum plan-ning turns to identifying activities the group might use to an-swer the questions. It is after these "what" and "how" concerns

172

1 7


are addressed that questions of knowledge, skill, and resourcesare appropriate. p. 39

Integrated middle level curriculum should involve students in learn-ing about aspects of real life issues. The increasing rapidity of change inthe information society underscores the need for schools to update curricu-lum options and develop new ones. A regenerative, systemic capacity willbe required for those efforts to succeed.

Beane (1995) suggested "coherent" curriculum as a broader framefor the development of integrated curriculum.

A 'coherent' curriculum is one that holds together, that makessense as a whole; and its parts, whatever they are, are unifiedand connected by that sense of the whole. The idea of coherencebegins with a view of the curriculum as a broadly conceivedconcept as the curriculum that is about 'something.' It is notsimply a collection of disparate parts or pieces that accumulatein student experiences and on transcripts. A coherent curricu-lum has a sense of the forest as well as the trees, a sense of unityand connectedness, of relevance and pertinence. Parts or piecesare connected or integrated in ways that are visible and explicit.There is a sense of a larger, compelling purpose, and actionsare tied to that purpose. p. 3

From that perspective, integrated curriculum clearly seems prerequi-site for achieving curriculum coherence. Beane (1995) offered two condi-tions such efforts need to address: "creating and maintaining visible con-nections between purposes and everyday learning experiences," and "cre-ating contexts that organize and connect learning experiences" (p. 7).

ID ConclusionThe middle level curriculum developments over the past hundred years

sketched in this chapter have led educators to a watershed point. Broaden-ing cultural heritage and rapidly occurring shifts in social, economic, andpolitical life are shaping new challenges to our democratic way of living.As adults, current middle level students will have to deal with the inter-twined dimensions of modern life from which those changing societal de-mands are emerging. To increase the learning success of all young adoles-cents, middle level curriculum must deal with a number of contextual is-sues including the conceptual separation and structural and socioculturalisolation of curriculum.

173173


Cornbleth (1996), discussed the need to improve the conceptual inte-gration of curriculum and its structural and sociocultural contextualization.In developing more coherent curriculum options, middle level schools needto deal with a range of critical questions Cornbleth raised.

What are the demographic, social, political, and economicconditions and trends that seem to shape the existing cur-riculum and seem likely to affect the desired changes?

How is the desired curriculum change compatible with cul-tural traditions and prevailing ideologies? What influentialgroups are affected? (What are the potential sources of sup-port and opposition?) What historical, recent, or continuingevents are apt to influence the curriculum change effort?

Which education system components or subsystems could me-diate (supporting of oppositional) sociocultural influences.How are past experiences with curriculum change likely toinfluence the present effort?

What system components are affected? (What roles, relation-ships, and patterns of activity? At what levels?) How is thedesired curriculum change compatible or at odds with theprevailing culture of education systems? What are the bu-reaucratic operating procedures and challenges offormal andinformal control of the affected system components? (Whocontrols what, to what extent, and how?) What and where arethe tensions or contradictions within the system that mightbecome loci for curriculum change? p. 160

To respond to the challenges young adolescents bring to school re-quires that middle level curriculum address and resolve these context con-cerns. In the position paper, This We Believe: Developmentally ResponsiveMiddle Level Schools (NMSA, 1995) the authors noted:

The importance of achieving developmentally responsive middlelevel schools cannot be overemphasized. The nature of the edu-cational programs young adolescents experience during thisformative period of life will, in large measure, determine thefuture for all of us. p. 33

To do that, middle level curriculum must respond to the differences inboth kind and degree of the learning needs young adolescents bring to school.Capelluti & Brazee (1992) identified our need to change existing middlelevel curricula.

1 7 9174


Success at learning the old curriculum is no longer a guaranteeof achievement in the adult world. Changing the curriculum isno longer a question of should we it is a complex matter ofwhen and how. p. 1

Whether or not middle level curriculum prepares students to meet thedemands of life in the next millennium depends on our willingness to ac-cept that challenge. g

ReferencesAlexander, W. (1973). An imperative for the curriculum worker: An histori-

cal perspective. Impact on instructional improvement, 8 (20), 3-8.

Alexander, W. M., Williams, E. L., Compton, M., Hines, V., & Prescott, D.(1968). The middle school years. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

Baker, J. (Chairman) (1913). Report of the committee of the national council

of education on economy of time in education. Bulletin 1913, No. 38. Washington,

DC: Government Printing Office.

Beane, J. (1995). Introduction: What is a coherent curriculum? In J. Beane,(Ed.), Toward a coherent curriculum (pp. 1-14). Alexandria, VA: Association forSupervision and Curriculum Development

Beane, J. (1993). A middle school curriculum: From rhetoric to reality (2nd

edition). Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association.Bennett, G. (1919). The junior high school. Baltimore: Warwick & York.

Briggs, T. (1920). The junior high school. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Bunker, F. (1909). Minutes of the November 30, 1909 meeting, Board ofeducation minutes.Berkeley, CA: Board of Education.

Capelluti, J., & Brazee, E. (1992). Middle level curriculum: Making sense.Middle School Journal, 12 (5), 1-5.

Cornbleth, C. (1996). Curriculum in and out of context. In E. Hollins (Ed.),Transforming curriculum for a culturally diverse society (pp. 149-161). Mahwah,NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Douglass, A. (1916) The junior high school plan. Part III., The fifteenthyearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education. Bloomington, IN:Public School Publishing Company.

Eichhorn, D. (1966). The middle school. NY: Center for Applied Researchin Education. (Jointly reissued in 1986 by the National Association of Secondary

School Principals, Reston, VA, and the National Middle School Association, Co-lumbus, OH.)

Eliot, C. (1898). EdUcational reform: Essays and addresses. New York:Century Company.

175 180


Faunce. R., & Bossing, N. (1951). Developing the core curriculum.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Feldlaufer, H., Midgley, C., & Eccles, J. (1987). Student, teacher, and ob-server perceptions of the classroom environment before and after the transition to

junior high school. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.

Glass, J. (1924). Curriculum practices in the junior high school and gradesfive and six. Supplementary Monographs, No, 25. Chicago: University of Chicago

Press.

Glass. J. (1923a). The reorganization of the seventh, eighth, and ninth grades

program of studies. School Review, 30 (3), 518-532.

Glass. J. (1923b). The junior high school. The New Republic, 30 (466), 20-

24.

Gruhn, W. &. Douglas, H. (1947). The modern junior high school. NY: The

Ronald Press.

Hall. G. S. (1905). Adolescence, its psychology and its relations to physiol-

ogy, anthropology, sociology, sex, crime, relition, and education. Vol. II. NY: D.Appleton.

Heironimus, N. (1917) The teacher-advisor in the junior high school, Edu-

cational Administration and Supervision, 3 (2), 91-94.Jacobs, H. (1989). Interdisciplinary curriculum: Design 'and implementa-

tion. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Judd, C. (1918). The evolution of the democratic school system. New York:

Harcourt, Brace.

Koos, L. (1927). The junior high school. Boston: Ginn.

Lounsbury, J. H., & Vars, G. F. (1978). A curriculum for the middle schoolyears. New York: Harper & Row.

Mamchur, C. (1990). But ... the curriculum. Kappan, 71 (8), 634-638.Melton G. (November 6, 1995). Personal conversation.

Moss, T. (1969). The middle school. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.

National Education Association (1899). Report of the committee on college

entrance requirements. Journal of proceedings and addresses of the thirty-eighth

meeting. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.National Education Association (1907). Report of the committee on the equal

division of the twelve years in the public schools between the district and the high

school. Journal of proceedings and addresses of the forty-sixth annual meeting.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.



Noar, G. (1953). The junior high school: Today and tomorrow. New York:

Prentice-Hall.

176

181


Shawan, J. (1910). Annual report of the Board of Education of the city ofColumbus for the year ending August 31, 1909. Columbus, OH: Board of Educa-tion.

Study, J. (1891). Biennial report of the public schools in Richmond, Indiana,

for the years ending July 31, 1890 and July 31, 1891. Richmond IN: M. Culliton.

Study, J. (1897). Biennial report of the public schools in Richmond, Indiana,

for the years the years ending July 31, 1896 and July 31, 1897. Richmond, IN:Nicholson Publishing Company.

Toepfer, C., Jr. (1962). Evolving curricular patterns in junior high schools:An historical study. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Buffalo, NY: The Univer-sity of Buffalo.

Toepfer, C., Jr. (1971). Stone walls do not make nor iron bars a cage: Schools

for emerging adolescents. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Develop-ment News Exchange, 8 (5), 3-5.

Toepfer, C., Jr. (1986). Middle level transition and articulation issues. Middle

School Journal, 18 (1), 9-11.

Toepfer, C., Jr. (1992). Middle school curriculum: Defining the elusive. In J.Irvin (Ed.), Transforming middle level education: Perspectives and possibilities(pp. 205-243). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Tompkins, T. (1960). What's new at the National Association of Secondary

School Principals? National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin,44 (2), 44-45.

Tryon, R., Smith, H., & Rood, A. (1927). The program of studies in theseventy-eight junior high school centers. School Review, 35 (1) 96-107.

Valentine, J. W., Clark, D. C., Nickerson, N. C., & Keefe, J. W. (1981). The

middle level principalship,Volume 1: A survey of middle level principals and pro-grams. Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals.

Van Denburg, J. (1922). The junior high school idea. New York: Henry.

Van Til, W., Vars, G., & Lounsbury, J. (1967) Modern education for thejunior high school years. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.

Vars, G. (1969). Common learnings: Core and interdisciplinary team ap-proaches. Scranton, PA: International Textbook Company.

177 182

Gordon F. Vars.

Effects of Integrative Curriculumand Instruction

The 1990s witnessed a virtual explosion of interest in integrativecurriculum and instruction, especially among middle level educa-tors. More than 30 books and monographs on that topic were pub-

lished between 1990 and 1995. In countless articles, conferences, work-shops, seminars, and inservice presentations, educators today are promot-ing a variety of integrative approaches. The integration movement is diffi-cult to trace, because advocates often create their own terminology. As aresult, more than a dozen terms may be found in the literature. Some ofthese reflect purpose, such as "holistic," whereas terms like"multidisciplinary" and "interdisciplinary" usually refer to a specific cur-riculum design (Vars, 1993, pp. 9-27).

The National Middle School Association (1995) used the term "inte-grative" in its position paper This We Believe: Developmentally Respon-sive Middle Level Schools. The association calls for "curriculum that ischallenging, integrative, and exploratory" (p. 30). The meaning of "inte-grative" is explained as follows:

Curriculum is integrative when it helps students make sense outof their life experiences. This requires curriculum that is itselfcoherent, that helps students connect school experiences to theirdaily lives outside the school, and that encourages them to re-flect on the totality of their experiences. p. 30

Despite assertions that integrative curriculum is a new phenomenonin education, efforts to bring about this kind of education span many de-cades and involve long-standing issues in educational decision making(Schubert, 1995; Vars, 1992; Wraga, 1996; and Chapter 14 in this volume).

179 1 8 3.


This chapter deals with attempts to achieve coherence by combining orreplacing courses or subject areas that ordinarily are taught separately. Suchprograms may be taught either by one teacher or by a team. More than 100studies of such programs' effects on students were examined in preparing aresearch summary for the National Association of Secondary School Prin-cipals (Vars, 1996). This chapter draws heavily on a further synthesis ofthat research prepared for the Wisconsin Connecting the Curriculum Project(Vars, 1995).

Ll Cautions and complicationsAnalyzing research on combined programs is complicated, not only

by the lack of common terminology, but also by the variety of curriculumdesigns employed and the differences attributable to whether the programis taught by one teacher or by a team. Moreover, no two teachers imple-ment any curriculum design in exactly the same way. The research spansmore than 60 years and employs many different research designs, makingit even more difficult to summarize findings. Bias inevitably creeps intoany research carried out in schools, too, because districts are understand-ably reluctant to publicize less-than-satisfactory results of any innovativeprogram. All these limitations should be kept in mind when reading this orany other attempt to summarize research in such a complex field as educa-tion.

When combined courses are taught by one teacher, they usually oc-cupy several periods in the daily schedule. Wright called these "block-timecourses," since they show up as multiple-period blocks in the schedule(Wright, 1950, 1952, 1958; Wright & Greer, 1963). The different namesgiven to block-time courses range from a simple hyphenated designationlike "English-Social Studies" to more ambiguous terms like "Basic Educa-tion," "Unified Studies," "Common Learnings," or "Core."

The degree of curriculum integration within block-time classes alsovaries considerably, whatever the course is called. Even when each subjectretains its separate identity, course sequences in several subjects may berearranged so that content related to a particular theme or topic is taught atthe same time; that is, courses are "correlated." Or the content of severalcourses may be combined or "fused" to make up a new course, such as"American Studies," which usually incorporates subject matter from En-glish, social studies, art, and music.

Conventional subjects may even be replaced by courses or units jointlyplanned by students and teachefs without regard to subject boundaries.Block-time courses that focus directly on student needs, problems, or con-

180

1 8 4

EFFECTS OF INTEGRATIVE CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTION

cerns acquired the label "core" during the Eight-Year Study of the Progres-sive Education Association (Aikin, 1942), but the term often was appliedto any block-time class. This student-centered "core curriculum" conceptshould not be confused with the term "core of the curriculum," referring tothe courses required of all students.

A different way to promote curriculum coherence is to assign a groupof students to an interdisciplinary team of teachers, typically made up ofspecialists in language arts, social studies, science, and mathematics. Inter-disciplinary teams may operate within a block of time equivalent to thenumber of periods required for each of the subjects included. Here, too, thedegree of curriculum integration achieved by interdisciplinary teams var-ies widely. Teams may plan and carry out interdisciplinary units from timeto time, but few do much more than correlate subjects, since each teammember continues to function as a specialist in one particular subject.

CI Academic achievementWhen any kind of integrative approach is considered, the first ques-

tion raised is likely to be: "How will the new program affect student aca-demic achievement?" Early research on block-time programs was summa-rized by Mickelson (1957), Alberty (1960), and Wright (1956, 1963). Re-cent studies, such as Lee and Smith (1992) confirm the earlier results. Re-search on the effects of interdisciplinary team teaching have been summa-rized by Armstrong (1977), Cotton (1982), Arhar, Johnston, and Markle(1992), and in Chapter 5 in the present volume.

Studies conducted over more than 60 years point to the same generalconclusion: Almost without exception, students in any type of combinedcurriculum do as well as, and often better than, students in a conventionaldepartmentalized program. These results hold regardless of whether thecombined curriculum is taught by one teacher in a self-contained or block-time class or by an interdisciplinary team of teachers representing differentsubject areas (Vars, 1996; National Association for Core Curriculum, 1997).It should be noted that, for the most part, these results were obtained usingstandardized achievement tests designed for a conventional separate-sub-jects program.

ID Other benefitsAdvocates assert that integrative curriculum makes learning more mean-

ingful for students, especially if, like a core class, it is student-centered andorganized around issues or problems. This is expected to increase studentmotivation, foster higher order thinking, enhance interpersonal skills, and

181

185


improve attitudes toward peers, teachers, and school (Vars, 1969).Concrete evidence such as attendance rates and disciplinary referrals

confirm that students usually do enjoy integrated classes. Measuring otherless tangible results is exceedingly difficult, and the evidence tends to beanecdotal or based on personal opinions of students, teachers, and parents.Some studies have shown that students in integrated programs are better atcritical thinking, get along better with their peers and teachers, and havemore positive attitudes toward learning. However, most comparison stud-ies have found few significant differences, mainly because teachers con-tinue to use conventional, didactic methods, even when the curriculum issupposed to be integrated and student-centered.

Ci Effects due to type of curriculumTo date, few studies have attempted to distinguish among the effects

of correlated, fused, and student-centered core approaches, whether taughtby one teacher or by a team. Most of these found few significant differ-ences. Programs proved to be very similar and were usually limited to thecorrelation of subjects, regardless of label. A few in-depth case studies ofstudent-centered programs reveal many positive outcomes of curriculumintegration when it is carefully-planned and executed (Alexander, Carr, &McAvoy, 1995; Pate, Homestead, & McGinnis, 1997; Springer, 1994;Stevenson & Carr, 1993).

One teacher versus interdisciplinary teamSome evidence exists that student achievement is greater and inter-

personal relationships are more positive in self-contained classes than inteamed programs, and that both are better than conventional separate-sub-jects arrangements (Lee & Smith, 1992). The differences between the ef-fects of one-teacher and team approaches appear to vary according to sub-ject matter and also student background factors such as socioeconomic sta-tus. Students predicted to make below-average success seem to do betterunder the closer teacher-student relations possible in a self-contained class,especially in verbal subjects like English, reading, and social studies. Onthe other hand, the teacher specialization in one or two subject areas that ispossible in interdisciplinary teaming may bring about higher achievementwith students at the upper end of the distribution (Becker, 1987; McPartland,1992).

Some educators argue for a combination of both approaches, usingteams of two teachers (Alexander, Carr, & McAvoy, 1995). Each wouldteach two or three subjects in an extended block of time. The time blocks

182

186


would enable students and teachers to develop good rapport, and academicinstruction would be sufficiently focused so that teachers could developsome expertise in their teaching fields. Additional research is needed tosupport this recommendation.

1:1 Student success in later schoolingStudies carried out in the 1950s and 1960s indicated that students

who complete combined courses in middle or junior high school nearlyalways make normal or better marks in high school. The Eight-Year Study,confirmed by some later research, concluded that graduates of integrativehigh school programs usually do better in college than those from conven-tional departmentalized programs, both in terms of academic performanceand in participation in extracurricular activities. Moreover, .graduates ofthe most experimental, student-centered programs made better progress incollege than those from high schools that departed only slightly from theseparate-subjects approach. More recent studies of this type are urgentlyneeded.

D Maximizing the benefits of integrative curriculumWhile the research is quite conclusive that there will be no loss of

student academic achievement as a result of combining subjects, each schooldistrict should continuously monitor all student outcomes in any innova-tive program. Test scores, proficiency examination results, attendance, at-titude surveys, and other kinds of data should be gathered before the newprogram is instituted, and at regular intervals thereafter. Data should becarefully interpreted, making due allowances for initial differences in stu-dent aptitude and other factors. Educators also may anticipate a temporary"implementation dip" that sometimes occurs whenever anything new istried. The other less tangible benefits mentioned earlier will be realizedonly if the new program is carefully planned and executed, drawing on thedecades of research and experience available on how it should be carriedout (Van Zandt & Albright, 1996; Wraga, 1996). Above all, the new cur-riculum should not be sold as a panacea that will solve all problems, butrather as an approach that has proved its worth when properly implemented.

U Needed researchAlthough the research evidence on student achievement in integra-

tive programs is substantial, many other aspects need further study. Con-sider, for example, the differential effects of correlated, fused, or student-centered core approaches on students' critical thinking, interpersonal skills,

1831 8 7


and commitment to further learning. All educators who are involved inintegrating the curriculum can help by keeping careful records and usingthem in action-research on their own curriculum and instruction (Wiscon-sin Department of Public Instruction, 1997). Schools and school systemsshould budget for ongoing research on a wide variety of student outcomes.Districts might involve nearby colleges and universities in helping to as-sess the results of the new approach. Results should be shared carefullyand honestly with students, teachers, parents, and the community, and dis-seminated to the education profession.

School patrons rightfully demand accountability, and schools have aprofessional obligation to report the full range of student outcomes, notjust test scores. This is especially critical in as complex an undertaking asintegrating curriculum and instruction, where many of the benefits are noteasily measured but are, nevertheless, real and important. EJ

ReferencesAikin, W. M. (1942). The story of the eight-year study. New York: Harper.

Alberty, H. B. (1960). Core programs. In C. W. Harris (Ed.), Encyclopediaof educational research (3rd ed.) (pp. 337-341). New York: Macmillan.

Alexander, W. M., Carr, D., & McAvoy, K. (1995). Student-oriented cur-

riculum: Asking the right questions. Columbus, OH: National Middle School As-sociation.

Arhar, J. M., Johnston, J. H., & Markle,.G. E. (1992). The effects of teaming

on students. In J. H. Lounsbury (Ed.), Connecting the curriculum through interdis-

ciplinary instruction (pp. 23-35). Columbus, OH: National Middle School Asso-ciation.

Armstrong, D. G. (1977). Team teaching and academic achievement. Re-view of Educational Research, 47 (1), 65-86.

Becker,s1-1. J. (1987). Addressing the needs of different groups of early ado-

lescents: Effects of varying school and classroom organizational practices on stu-

dents from different social backgrounds and abilities. Report # 16. Baltimore, MD:

Center for Research on Elementary and Middle Schools, Johns Hopkins Univer-sity.

Cotton, K. (1982). Effects of interdisciPlinary team teaching: Research syn-

thesis. Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Lab. ED 230 533.Lee, V. E., & Smith, J. B. (1992). Effects of school restructuring on achieve-

ment and engagement of middle grade students. Madison, WI: Center on Organi-zation and Restructuring of Schools. ED 346 617.

188 184


McPartland, J. M. (1992). Staffing patterns and the social organization ofschools. Paper delivered at the 44th biennial meeting of the Society for Research

on Adolescence.

Mickelson, J. M. (1957). What does research say about the effectiveness of

the core curriculum? School Review, 65 (2), 144-160.

National Association for Core Curriculum. (1997). A bibliography of re-search on the effectiveness of block-time, core, & interdisciplinary team teaching

programs. Kent, OH: Author.National Middle School Association. (1995). This we believe: Developmen-


Pate, P. E., Homestead, E. R., & McGinnis, K. L. (1997). Making integrated

curriculum work. New York: Teachers College Press.

Schubert, W. H. (1995). Toward lives worth living and sharing: Historicalperspectives on curriculum coherence. In J. A. Beane (Ed.), Toward a coherentcurriculum (pp. 146-157). 1995 Yearbook of the Association for Supervision and

Curriculum Development. Alexandria, VA: The Association.

Springer, M. (1994). Watershed: A successful voyage into integrative learn-

ing. Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association.

Stevenson, C., & Carr, J. F. (Eds.) (1993). Integrated studies in the middlegrades: Dancing through walls. New York: Teachers College Press.

Van Zandt, L.M., & Albright, S.B. (1996).The implementation of interdisci-

plinary curriculum and instruction. In P.S. Hlebowitsh & W. G. Wraga (Eds.), An-

nual review of research for school leaders (pp. 165-201). Reston, VA: NationalAssociation of Secondary School Principals & Scholastic Publishing Company.

Vars, G. F. (1969), Common learnings: Core and interdisciplinary team ap-

proaches. Scranton, PA: Intext.Vars, G. F. (1992). Integrative curriculum: A deja vu. Current issues in middle

level education, 1 (1), 66-78.Vars, G. F. (1993). Interdisciplinary teaching: Why and how. (2d. ed.). Co-

lumbus, OH: National Middle School Association.Vars, G. F. (1995). Synthesis of research. CTC Briefing Papers. Madison,

WI: Connecting the Curriculum Project, WI Department of Public Instruction.

Vars, G. F. (1996). Effects of interdisciplinary curriculum and instruction. In

P. S. Hlebowitsh & W. G. Wraga (Eds.), Annual review of research for schoolleaders (pp. 147-164). Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Prin-

cipals & Scholastic Publishing Company.Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction. (1997). A guide to curriculum

and action research. Milwaukee, WI: Author

185 189


Wraga, W. G. (1996). A century of interdisciplinary curricula in American

schools. In P. S. Hlebowitsh & W. G. Wraga (Eds.), Annual review of research for

school leaders (pp. 117-145). Reston, VA: National Association of SecondarySchool Principals & Scholastic Publishing Company.

Wright, G. S. (1950). Core curriculum in public high schools: An inquiryinto practices, 1949. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

Wright, G. S. (1952). Core curriculum development: Problems and prac-tices. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

Wright, G. S. (1956). The core program: Abstracts of unpublished research,1946-1955. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

Wright, G. S. (1958). Block-time classes and the core program in the juniorhigh school. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

Wright, G. S. (1963). The core program: Unpublished research, 1956-1962.

Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

Wright, G. S. & Greer, E. S. (1963). The junior high school: A survey ofgrades 7-8-9 in junior and junior-senior high schools, 1959-60. Washington, DC:Government Printing Office.

190186

Edward Brazee

Curriculum for Whom?

Who decides what is worthwhile to know and experience, in or-der that human beings might reach greater potential and de-velop a more just social order? Schubert, 1993

The overarching purpose of all schooling in our society is tohelp students become good citizens, lifelong learners, andhealthy, caring, ethical, and intellectually reflective individu-als. National Middle School Asssociation, 1995.

For whom is the curriculum? Is it for young adolescents or is it foradults, teachers, administrators, and parents? While it is logical thatthe curriculum should be designed with students as the primary bene-

factors, in actuality middle school curriculum rarely considers the ques-tions and concerns of young adolescents. The problem with middle schoolcurriculum is that we ask students to give answers to questions they do notask (Arnold, 1993).

When adults make decisions about what young adolescents need toknow and be able to do, the traditional curriculum has not been for youngadolescents nor has it been designed by them either. Historically, curricu-lum has been developed by adults working with one agenda or another forsuch purposes as inculcating American culture, raising test scores, and teach-ing basic skills. Texts are written by adults, curriculum guides are writtenby adults, and adults serve on curriculum committees. Underlying the real-ity of this adult influence on the curriculum is the widespread belief thatyoung adolescents do not know what is important to learn.

187.11_91


Beane (1993) reminded educators that, "a curriculum developed apartfrom the teachers and young people who must live it is grossly undemo-cratic in the ways it deprives them of their right to have a say in their ownlives and to learn and apply the skills and understandings associated withmaking important decisions. In the area of curriculum planning and devel-opment, we ought to have learned this lesson by now: distance breeds con-tempt" (p.16). Perhaps this neglect has come from an older and more pes-simistic view of young adolescents that does not capitalize on their posi-tive possibilities. Scales (1991) noted that it is essential to base our actionson a more thorough understanding of what young adolescents develop-mentally need and who they are. What research says regarding the role ofyoung adolescents in developmentally responsive curriculum planning isreviewed below.

[:1 A misleading view of young adolescentsMisunderstanding, stereotypes, and misinformation about young ado-

lescents pervade schools and the general public. All of these inhibit a cur-riculum that is both responsive and rigorous. Arnold (1993) reported theemphasis on younger children and older adolescents in the literature. Forexample, the chief stage theorists, Piaget, Kohlberg, and Erikson, have de-voted relatively little research and description to 10-15 year olds, even whenthey included young adolescence in their frameworks; there is little coordi-nation among various social service agencies serving this age group (Lipsitz,1980). Historically, young adolescents have been neglected in the K-12spectrum with little interest shown toward this age group, although thissituation has improved dramatically in the past 15 years.

Myths of early adolescence do not reflect their true nature. In thepast, adolescence has been characterized as a time of storm and stress, yetthis concept which grew out of psychiatric literature (Hall, 1904) and hasbeen popularized in the media is not accurate. More recent information(Hillman, 1991; Horowitz, 1989; Russell, 1990) has given us a broaderview of development. Peterson (1987) found that a large majority of youngadolescents are not strife ridden.

While the biological, social, emotional, and intellectual changes ofearly adolescence may certainly be upsetting to both children and theirparents, approximately 80% of young adolescents make it through this pe-riod with only minor adjustments (Scales, 1991). Feldman and Elliott (1990)suggested that although the dominant characteristic of adolescence is change

change in physical, social, emotional, and intellectual functioning thereis scant evidence of unrelenting family conflict and dramatic, debilitating

19 °188

CURRICULUM FOR WHOM?

crises. Rather, most parents and adolescents enjoy considerable agreementon fundamental values concerning morality, marriage and sex, race, andreligious and political orientations (Roberts, 1993). A realistic view of 10-15 year olds that recognizes who they are, their unique needs, and theiraspirations for the future is a key element in providing the curriculum neededfor all young adolescents (Lesko, 1994).

[:1 A way of viewing young adolescentsWhat then are the normal needs, characteristics, and issues that dis-

tinguish this age group? Equally important, though addressed less frequently,what are the unique needs and conditions of young women and minorityyouth, especially those that may not be self-evident in larger discussions ofearly adolescence?

Understanding the period of early adolescence, the ages from 10-15years, has been problematic for the lay-public, researchers, and practitio-ners. Because of the conjunction of biological, social, emotional, and intel-lectual needs and characteristics, and their attendant contexts school, home,community this period has often been overlooked (Hill, 1980). Yet, thereis a growing consensus about the universal and essential requirements forhealthy development for young adolescents.

This consensus can be simply stated. All adolescents, regardlessof economic background, race and ethnicity, gender, and geo-graphical region or country, have basic needs that Must be sat-isfied: to experience secure relationships with a few human be-ings, to be a valued member of groups that provide mutual aidand caring relationships, to become a competent individual whocan cope with the exigencies of everyday life, and to believe in apromising future in work, family, and citizenship.

Takanishi, 1993

Based on this and other conceptions (Carnegie Council of AdolescentDevelopment, 1989; NMSA, 1995; Steinberg, 1993) of early adolescence,the picture of not only what the curriculum should be, but for whom thecurriculum should be becomes clearer. Breaking away from long-term ste-reotypes of the age group and building on positive and complex views ofyoung adolescents is essential for understanding the curriculum needed forthem (Arnold, 1993).

The central, underlying feature of middle level education, develop-mental responsiveness, is mentioned prominently in the literature, but hasrarely been used as a base for curriculum development in schools (Brazee,

189193


1995). Yet, the mismatch between developmental issues and middle levelcurriculum is seen as a major issue in advancing middle level education(Eccles & Midgley, 1989; Hillman, Wood, Becker, & Altier, 1990; Jackson& Hornbeck, 1989).

Perhaps the fact that applying information about young adolescentdevelopment has been more for show than for know, should not be surpris-ing since middle level education has focused on climate and organizationalchange before curricular change (George, Stevenson, Thomason, & Beane,1992; Lounsbury & Clark, 1990). While this is not a criticism of the excel-lent work done by middle level schools in the past, it acknowledges theneed to apply knowledge about growth and development equally to all as-pects of the middle level school curriculum as well as schedule; assess-ment as well as advisor/advisee programs.

One promising framework for understanding the developmental needsof young adolescents is that developed by the former Center for Early Ado-lescence. Growing out of the issues recognized in most theories of adoles-cent development, and based on extensive research of successful schoolsand community-based programs, these seven needs focus on the positivegoals for the healthy development of young people (Scales, 1991). Muchof this work is based on Hill's (1980) model for understanding adolescenceorganized around three basic components: the fundamental changes of ado-lescence (biological, cognitive and social transitions), the contexts of ado-lescence (families, peer groups, schools, work, and leisure), and the psy-chosocial issues of adolescence (identity, autonomy, intimacy, sexuality,achievement). Scales (1991) acknowledged that the developmental needsframework does not show how those needs might vary in emphasis de-pending on a particular young adolescent's gender, race, or other importantcharacteristics, so those areas will be examined in the section following.

This "working" framework will be used to illustrate several broadneeds of young adolescents and subsequent implications for curriculumdevelopment in middle schools. Curriculum that meets these broad needsshould be both developmentally responsive and answer the question "cur-riculum for whom?"

Ui Competence, achievement, and creative expressionYoung adolescents need varied, legitimate opportunities to be suc-

cessful and to have their accomplishments recognized by others. They wantto be competent at something doing mathematics, playing the tuba, build-ing model planes, baking pies, or playing basketball. They also want to becompetent in those subjects and skills taught at school. Yet, this need to be

.194 190


competent and achieve is often in conflict with a curriculum that is notdeveloped with young adolescents in mind.

Opportunities for students to develop competence and to achieve at ahigh level are often limited in traditional subject areas. How often in lan-guage arts, science, mathematics, and social studies can students demon-strate competence beyond high scores on tests and essays or correctly an-swering questions at the end of the chapter?

Anecdotal accounts of integrated curriculum (Arnold, 1990; Brazee& Capelluti, 1995; Springer, 1995; Stevenson & Carr, 1993) demonstratedthat young adolescents have a strong interest in intellectual pursuits, wantto work at a high level, and want to be recognized as competent for theirefforts. But, students must be allowed to pursue projects and answer ques-tions of importance to them. While they may be totally indifferent to pho-tosynthesis when it appears in a science textbook, they may be fascinatedand ready to study it when it appears in a unit of ecology suggested by theirown questions.

Several key elements have been identified which allow young adoles-cents to be competent and to achieve (Newmann, 1990; Resnick, 1986).Students need to be engaged with meaningful material where skills areneeded to learn content or communicate understandings; acquiring isolatedand fragmented content knowledge is nonproductive. Serious engagementwith real problems has to occur in depth and over time. Students need ex-periences that lead to placing high value on critical thinking as a disposi-tion, not isolated skill. Many of these elements occur most readily, andperhaps exclusively when students have the opportunity for real, ongoingdiscourse with teachers (Alexander, 1995; Feldman & Elliott, 1990).

Opportunities for students to be competent and to achieve in areasoutside the conventional curriculum, through activity periods, exploratories,intramurals, and advisories, are prevalent in middle level schools (McEwin,Dickinson, & Jenkins, 1996). Young adolescents should not be limited andexposed only to typical ways of thinking and standard ways of respondingto ideas. Gardner's (1983) theory of multiple intelligences and brain com-patible theories (Caine & Caine, 1991) reminds us that the reading-writ-ing-testing model is only one way to respond and is limiting if it is the onlyway. While it is certainly appropriate in some areas, young adolescentsneed multiple opportunities to learn a skill or concept and to express thatlearning to someone else. We seriously limit students' abilities if we expectthem to learn only through reading and writing. Oral presentations, de-bates, position papers, technical writing, poetry, dance, drama, computer


presentations are just a few of the many ways for students to respond cre-atively to the external world.

ID Meaningful participation in families, schools, andcommunities

The middle school curriculum usually happens to, not with, youngadolescents at a time when they are eager to contribute to life in meaning-ful ways. Middle schools continue to give young adolescents answers toquestions they never asked or even care about. This at a time when weknow they have compelling questions of their own.

McDonough (1991) reported the types of questions a sample of 500young adolescents in rural, urban, and suburban school districts posed. Whengiven opportunities to ask questions and pursue serious study of topicsimportant to them students noted a concern for environmental problems;worries about their own reputation and the earth; and concerns for the in-ability of different countries to get along with each other.

Curriculum theorists (Beane, 1993; Brazee & Capelluti, 1995) sug-gest that young adolescents' questions should be the basis for middle schoolcurriculum, one that allows meaningful participation in families, schools,and communities. A number of schools (Alexander, 1995; Powell & Skoog,1995: Springer, 1994) are working toward an integrated curriculum wheresuch activities are typical. Alexander described such a school where stu-dent questions form the base for the curriculum; many of their questionsinvolve students in serious work with their schools, communities, and fami-lies. Arnold (1991) described middle schools where service learning is amajor effort involving students in their communities.

Opportunities for service learning projects as part of the curriculumexist in other middle schools (Fertman, White, & White, 1996; Halsted,1997). Boyer (1995) suggested that all students complete a community ser-vice project, working in day-care centers and retirement villages or tutor-ing other students at school as a way to create meaning in their lives.

1:1 Opportunities for self-definitionDeveloping a sense of identity is a major developmental task of early

adolescence. Researchers (Hillman, 1991; Steinberg, 1993) suggested dif-ferent aspects of identity development including concern for physical ap-pearance, developing an ethical system, and developing socially respon-sible behaviors. Young adolescents are concerned about how they appearto peers, parents, and other adults as they move from child to adolescent.

The curriculum must provide opportunities for young adolescents to

192

196


explore such themes, both in themselves and for other young adolescents.Integrated curriculum projects that afford young adolescents opportunitiesto study other young adolescents in different times and different contextsare especially valuable. Risk-taking through opportunities to try out differ-ent ways of thinking and communicating is also critical in the changingyoung adolescent's sense of self-definition. Having time to work with adultswho model and encourage a personal point of view yet retain an opennessto other views is also critical (Harter, 1990).

Programs that involve students actively and allow them to exploretheir identity realistically through educational and occupational choicesshould also be used. On-the-job experience or job shadows from the schoolcurriculum allow young adolescents to develop their identities by tryingout new roles and developing new competencies. Finally, identifying thesources of self-esteem, those areas of competence important to young ado-lescents, is the key in changing attitudes about self (Harter, 1986).

Li Positive social interaction with adults and peersA common myth about young adolescents is that they neither want

nor desire adult companionship or help. Young adolescents, however, stillcount on their parents and other significant adults for assistance with cm-cial decisions and issues. They want to know that their parents and teachersare nearby, close enough to offer assistance when needed, but not too close.Ongoing, consistent, and caring relationships between students and adultsin the school setting are critical components of middle level classrooms.

Perhaps the best way to visualize the positive possibilities of suchclose relationships with adults is to consider something different. Somemiddle schools recognizing the developmental needs of young adolescentshave replaced the current system of short duration, random, formal teacher-student contacts, those that usually result in only a superficial and formalworking relationship, with a different organization (McEwin, et al., 1996).

Looping, the practice of keeping a team of teachers and students to-gether for at least two grade levels (for example, grades 5 and 6 or grades 6and 7) is an increasingly popular practice because it achieves longer-term.relationships. A block schedule which gives teachers a longer class periodwith a group of students is also gaining popularity as a means of keepingstudents together for longer periods of time.

0 Physical activityGiven the dramatic and compelling physical changes that occur dur-

ing early adolescence, it is not surprising that physical activity has a high193 197


priority for young adolescents. Furthermore, physical activity is a symbolof the larger health-promoting behaviors with which middle schools areconcerned.

Steinberg (1993) reminded us of the paradox of adolescent physicalhealth: on the one hand, adolescence is one of the healthiest periods in thelife span with low incidences of disabling or chronic illnesses; while, onthe other hand, it is a period of relatively great physical risk due to un-healthy behaviors (such as drug use), violence, and risky behavior (such asunprotected sexual intercourse).

It is critical for middle level schools to become health-promoting en-vironments. The Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development (1996),recommended three broad-based approaches that are more powerful whencombined: a life sciences curriculum with human biology; life-skills train-ing; and social support programs offering a range of human services.

Structure and clear limitsYoung adolescents need assistance setting boundaries in many as-

pects of their lives, but they do not need to be told what to do. They needauthoritative adults who provide clear guidance, but who also know whento "back-off" and allow young adolescents space to try things on their own(Baumrind, 1967). Even those young adolescents who appear older andmore mature may have difficulty setting the limits they need.

Young adolescents need frequent assistance and instruction when de-veloping these skills. For example, setting realistic time limits for a task,deciding with whom to collaborate, determining what materials are needed,defining the purpose of the task, responding to the audience, and demon-strating mastery of the learning in question, are all examples of structuresneeded.

Declining opportunities for autonomy and choice, in combination withincreased levels of teacher control, can undermine students' academic in-terest and motivation (Eccles, Midgley, & Adler, 1984). Young adolescents'involvement in decision making is crucial. We cannot expect them to knowhow to make decisions if we have not given them opportunities to do so.Because so many areas of their lives are changing rapidly, young adoles-cents need to know that they can count on consistency from parents andother adults. Parenting that is characterized by parental warmth, demo-cratic parent-child interaction, and parental demandingness is consistentlyassociated with positive developmental outcomes in young people(Steinberg, 1990).

1 9 S194


0 Self-identity for all studentsThe emphasis middle school educators place on attending tothe personal and developmental needs of young adolescents andthe imperative to help them develop a secure, clarified, self-iden-tity are applicable to all students. These concerns have someadditional dimensions for African American, Hispanic, Asian-American, and Native American youth because offactors of raceand ethnicity, as well. Gay, 1994

Fortunately, a body of research addressing young women and minority stu-dents as they achieve a sense of identity has become more prevalent.

Older views of development interpreted the differences in achieve-ment and self-concept measures between girls and boys as stemming fromdeficiencies in females, or did not differentiate girls' and boys' develop-ment at all. More recent work by researchers on female development(Gilligan, 1982; Gilligan, Lyons, Hanmer, 1990; Hancock, 1989; Mee, 1997)suggested that females approach knowledge, events, and experiences froma set of goals very different from those of boys.

Boys are socialized to excel in the individuating activities of compe-tition (in sports, making grades, argumentation), and therefore, find per-sonal self-worth in activities our culture associates with the rugged indi-vidual. These researchers find that girls locate their identities in the nurtur-ing atmosphere of relationships and their connection as individuals to theneeds of others (Butler & Sperry, 1991; Mee, 1997)

Researchers (Gilligan et al., 1990; Orenstein, 1994) found that earlymaturing females who score lower on measures of self-esteem than do theirearly maturing male counterparts, indicate the need for addressing genderrole socialization at a time when young women discover the disparity inpower and prestige associated with options for females and males. Compli-cating the picture of girls' development further, other researchers (Belenky,Clinchy, Goldberger, & Tarule, 1986) have described a very different de-velopmental paradigm of intellectual development that primarily charac-terizes women's growth.

Thus research suggests that, due to differences in the way boysand girls are socialized in our society, different developmentalpaths as well as different development concerns (moral, social,and intellectual) are created by the time of the middle level schoolyears for females and males. This significant body of researchsuggests that girls respond differently to the classroom environ-ment than boys and that educators, especially middle level edu-

195

'1_90


cators , whose claim is that their very curriculum arises from thenature of young adolescent development, cannot afford to ig-nore these findings. Butler & Sperry, 1991, p.21

Gay (1994) suggested that teachers need to know how "to translatethe theoretical edict of developmentally appropriate and responsive peda-gogy into effective instructional practices for early adolescents of color"(p. 149). Researchers (Atkinson, Morten & Sue, 1983; Cross, 1991; Phinney,1989, 1992; Phinney & Traver, 1988) found that the processes of personaland ego identity development for adolescents of color working to achieve aclarified ethnic identity are similar to those proposed by Erikson (1968). Itis necessary for young adolescents of color to negotiate what Du Bois (1969)called a "double-consciousness" while others (Darder, 1991; Ramirez &Castaneda, 1974) described it as the "bi-culturality" of their ethnic-racialidentity and their American-ness.

While some variations exist by ethnic groups and age, the generalpattern of ethnic identity development begins with self-ethnic unaware-ness, denial or disaffiliation, and unconscious and unquestioning depen-dence upon Eurocentric, mainstream cultural values and standards of self-definition. It then progresses through increasing levels of consciousness,pride, affirmation, and acceptance of the validity and worth of one's ownethnic culture and heritage (Gay, 1994). Ethnic identity development mustbe regarded as part of the natural "coming of age" process of each youngadolescent.

Cross (1995) delineated several advantages of teaching diverse cul-tures including children's seeing themselves in the curriculum and children'sbenefitting from seeing people of diverse cultures in the curriculum, View-ing curriculum as singular and standardized endangers curriculum equalityfor all children, while structuring curriculum around culture has implica-tions for children's life in classrooms, for what children will learn, and forwhat they want for their future and the future of others.

CI For whom should the middle school curriculum be?Developmental responsiveness has provided the rationale for such

common middle level practices as advisory programs, teams, exploratoryprograms and many more. Yet, the same standard of developmental re-sponsiveness has had less influence on curriculum development. Only inthe last few years has the curriculum become a focal point of study asreformers recognized the limitations of concentrating on school climateand school organizational issues to change the middle school.

196

2 0 0


This recent interest in middle school curriculum has spurred new rolesand new questions for everyone involved teachers, parents, students, andcommunity members. Determining what curricula is responsive to youngadolescents' needs, projecting what students will need to know and be ableto do in the future, as well as staying current with community expectationsand changing disciplines, all are critical aspects of the curriculum develop-ment process. As a part of this process, significant student input, involve-ment, and planning in all aspects of the curriculum development process iscritical. Ultimately, middle school students must be engaged in developingthe curriculum, by posing questions about themselves and their world, aswell as answering questions the world poses for them.

Emphasis on developmentally responsive curricula will become anincreasingly important aspect of middle level development. The role youngadolescents play in curriculum development will be strengthened as moreteachers recognize that their students have significant concerns and inter-ests in skills, content, and attitudes that are studied within a context ofcritical issues. Ei

References

Alexander, W. (1995). Student-oriented curriculum: Asking the right ques-

tions. Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association.Arnold, J. (1990). Visions of teaching and learning: 80 innovative middle

level projects. Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association.Arnold, J. (1991). Towards a middle level curriculum rich in meaning. Middle

School Journal, 23 (2), 8-12.Arnold, J. (1993). A curriculum to empower young adolescents. Midpoints

4:1. Columbus, OH: National Mid le School Association.

Atkinson, D.R., Morten, G., & Sue, D.W. (1983). Proposed minority iden-tity development model. In D.R. Atkinson, et al. (Eds.), Counseling American mi-

norities: A cross-cultural perspective. (pp. 191-200). Dubuque, IA: William C.

Brown.

Baumrind, D. (1967). Child care practices anteceding three patterns of pre-

school behavior. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 75 , 43-88.

Beane, J.A. (1993). The middle school curriculum: From rhetoric to reality

(2nd ed.), Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association.

Belenky, M.F., Clinchy, B.M., Goldberger, N.R., & Tarule, J.M. (1986).Women's ways of knowing: The development of self, voice, and mind. New York:

Basic Books.

197 201


Boyer, E. (1995). The educated person. In J. Beane (Ed.), Toward a coherent

curriculum (pp. 16-25). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curricu-lum Development.

Brazee, E.N. (1995). An integrated curriculum supports young adolescentdevelopment. In Y. Siu-Runyan & V. Faircloth (Eds.), Beyond separate subjects:

Integrative learning at the middle level. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon Pub-lishers, Inc.

Brazee, E.N., & Capelluti, J. (1995). Dissolving boundaries: Toward an in-tegrative curriculum. Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association.

Butler, D., & Sperry, S. (1991). Gender issues and the middle school cur-riculum. Middle School Journal, 23 (2), 18-23.

Caine, R.N., & Caine, J. (1991). Making connections: Teaching and the hu-

man brain. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Develop-ment.

Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development. (1989). Turning points: Pre-paring American youth for the 21st century. New York: Carnegie Corporation.

Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development. (1996). Great transitions:Preparing adolescents for a new century. New York: Carnegie Corporation.

Cross, B. (1995). The case for a culturally coherent curriculum. In J. Beane

(Ed.), Toward a coherent curriculum (pp. 71-86). Alexandria, VA: Association forSupervision and Curriculum Development.

Cross, W. E. (1991). Shades of black: Diversity in African American iden-tity. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Darder, A. (1991). Culture and power in the classroom: A critical founda-tion of bicultural education. New York: Bergin & Garvey.

Du Bois, W.E.B. (1969). The souls of Black folks. New York: New American

Library.

Eccles, J.S., & Midgley, C. (1989). Stage environment fit: Developmentally

appropriate classrooms for young adolescents. In C. Ames & R. Ames (Eds.), Re-search on motivation in education (pp. 139-186). New York: Academic Press.

Eccles, J, Midgley, C., & Adler, T. F. (1984). Grade-related changes in the

school environment: Effects on achievement motivation. In J. G. Nicholls (Ed.),Advances in motivation and achievement (pp. 283-331). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Erikson, E.H. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. New York: Norton.

Feldman, S.S., & Elliott, G.R. (Eds.).(1990). At the threshold: The develop-

ing adolescent. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Fertman, C, White, G, & White, L. (1996). Service learning in the middleschool: Building a culture of service. Columbus, OH: National Middle SchoolAssociation.

202 198


Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences.New York: Basic Books.

Gay, G. (1994). Coming of age ethnically: Teaching young adolescents ofcolor. Theory Into Practice, 33 (3), 149-156.

George, P., Stevenson, C., Thomason, J., & Beane, J. (1992). The middleschool and beyond. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision & CurriculumDevelopment.

Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard.

Gilligan, C., Lyons, N. P., & Hanmer, T. J. (1990). Making connections: The

relational worlds of adolescent girls at Emma Willard School. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.

Hall, S. (1904). Adolescence. New York: Appleton.

Halstead, A. (1997). A bridge to adulthood: Service learning at the middle

level. Midpoints 7 (1).

Hancock, E. (1989). The girl within. New York: Random House.

Harter, S. (1986). Processes underlying the construction, maintenance, andenhancement of the self-concept in children. In J. Suls & A. Greenwald (Eds.),Psychological perspectives on the self (Vol 3, pp.137-138). Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.

Harter, S. (1990). Self and identity development. In S. Feldman & G. Elliott

(Eds.), At the threshold: The developing adolescent (pp. 352-382). Cambridge,MA.: Harvard University Press.

Hill, J. P. (1980). Understanding early adolescence a framework. Carrboro,

NC: The Center for Early Adolescence.Hillman, S.B. (1991). What developmental psychology has to say about early

adolescence. Middle School Journal, 23 (1), 3-8.Hillman, S.B., Wood, P. C., Becker, M.J., & Altier, D.T. (1990). Young ado-

lescent risk-taking behavior: Theory, research and implications for middle levelschools. In J.L. Irvin (Ed.), Research in middle level education: Selected studies

(pp. 39-50). Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association.Horowitz, F.D. (1989). Children and their development: Knowledge base,

research agenda, and social policy application. American Psychologist,44 (5) 441-

445.

Jackson, A. W., & Hornbeck, D.W. (1989). Educating young adolescents:Why we must restructure middle grade schools. American Psychologist, 44 (5)

180-187.

Lesko, N. (1994). Back to the future: Middle schools and the Turning Points

Report. Theory Into Practice 33 (3), 139-148.Lipsitz, J. (1980). Growing up forgotten. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction

Books.

203199


Lounsbury, J., & Clark, D. C. (1990). From apathy to excitement: Insidegrade eight. Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals.

McDonough, L. (1991). Middle level curriculum: The search for self andsocial meaning. Middle School Journal, 23 (2), 29-35.

McEwin, K, Dickinson, T.S., & Jenkins, D.M. (1996). America's middleschools: Practices and progressA 25 year perspective. Columbus, OH: NationalMiddle School Association.

Mee, C. (1997). 2,000 voices: Young adolescents' perceptions and curricu-lum implications. Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association.



Newmann, F. M. (1990). Higher order thinking in the teaching of socialstudies: Connections between theory and practice. In D. Perkins, J. Segal, & J.Voss (Eds.), Informal reasoning and education (pp. 381-400). Hillsdale, N.J.:Erlbaum.

Orenstein, P. (1994). School girls: Young women's self-esteem and the confi-dence gap. New York: Doubleday.

Peterson, A. (1987). Those gangly years. Psychology Today, 21 (9), 28-34.Phinney, J. S., & Traver, S. (1988). Ethnic identity search and commitment

in black and white eighth graders. Journal of Early Adolescence 8 (3), 265-277.

Phinney, J.S. (1989). Stages of ethnic identity development in minority group

adolescents. Journal of Early Adolescence 9 (1), 34-49.

Phinney, J.S. (1992). The multigroup ethnic identity measure: A new scalefor use with diverse groups. Journal of Adolescent Research, 7 (2), 156-176.

Powell, R., & Skoog, G. (1995). Students' perspectives on integrative cur-ricula: The case of Brown Barge Middle School. Research in Middle Level Educa-

tion Quarterly, 19 (1), 85-115.

Ramirez, M., & Castaneda, A. (1974). Cultural democracy, biocognitivedevelopment, and education. New York: Academic Press.

Resnick, L. B. (1986). Education and learning to think. Washington, DC:National Research Council.

Roberts, D. F. (1993). Adolescents and the mass media: From "Leave It toBeaver" to "Beverly Hills 90210." In R. Takashani (Ed.), Adolescence in the 1990s:

Risk and opportunity (pp. 171-186). New York: Teachers College Press.

Russell, A. (Ed.). (1990). Exploring territory west of childhood: The earlyteens. Carnegie Quarterly, 35 (1-2), 3-13.

Scales, P. (1991). A portrait of young adolescents in the 1990s: Implications

for promoting healthy growth and development. Carrboro, NC: Center for EarlyAdolescence.

204 200


Schubert, W. (1993). Curriculum reform. In G. Cawelti (Ed.), Challengesand achievements of American education: The 1993 ASCD Yearbook. Alexandria,

VA: The Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Springer, M. (1994). Watershed: A successful voyage into integrative learn-

ing. Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association.Stevenson, C., & Carr, J. F. (Eds.). (1993). Integrated studies in the middle

grades:Dancing through walls.' New York:Teachers College Press.Steinberg, L. (1990). Autonomy, conflict, and harmony in the family rela-

tionship. In S. Feldman & G. Elliott (Eds.), At the threshold: The developing ado-

lescent (pp. 255-276)). Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press.Steinberg, L. (1993). Adolescence. 3rd Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Takanishi, R. (Ed.). (1993). Adolescence in the 1990s: Risk and opportunity.

NY: Teachers College Press.

205201

James A. Beane

Curriculum for What?

/n the past few years, middle level educators have given increased at-tention to the question, "What should be the middle school curricu-lum?" (Beane, 1990, 1993). This question has proven to be a very

difficult one for several reasons, not the least of which is that it involves aprior question, "What is the purpose of the middle school curriculum?"

Educational historians point to the beginnings of the junior high schoolas one instance where a school reform movement was supported by severalgroups whose interests often competed under other circumstances (Cremin,1961; Cuban, 1992; Kliebard, 1986; Lounsbury, 1960). Among these groupswere the Committee of Ten (National Education Association, 1985) thatincluded the concept of a junior high school among its recommendationsfor accelerating college preparation, child labor activists anxious to keepyoung people in schools, vocational educators desiring guidance for schooldropouts, and developmentalists interested in making the schools more re-sponsive to what they claimed were the characteristics of young adoles-cents.

While such widespread support was instrumental in the implementa-tion of the early junior high school, it also created an ambiguous and, attimes, contradictory set of purposes as each group was a source of bothdemands and criticism. Moreover, all of those expectations were compli-cated by the contentious issue of whether the junior high school curriculumought to emphasize a general or "common" educational program for youngpeople or one that would begin the process of differentiation with regard tocareer paths after formal schooling.

This inix of curriculum purposes was nowhere better captured than inone of the earliest broad-scope volumes on this level, Briggs's (1920) The

203206

WHAT CURREITT RESEARCH SAYS

lum was asked to take on such purposes as promoting social integration,addressing personal concerns of young adolescents, exploring interests,surveying the traditional subjects, and investigating career possibilities.

Some educators, like Koos (1927), sought to assuage this ambiguitywith a curriculum consisting of "constants" and "variables." That view re-sulted in a fairly standard collection of academic subjects supplemented byvocational and academic selections and a homeroom guidance program,such as that detailed by Bruner (1925). Other educators, however, chose topush for one or two purposes rather than the whole array. For example,Thomas-Tindal and Myers (1924) called for a curriculum developed for"the child of junior high school age, the adolescent, [who] is in particularneed of physical, mental, and moral guidance in those all-important transi-tion years..." (p. 10). The curriculum they described followed the " Cardi-nal Principles of Education" (National Education Association, 1918) re-port by providing "guidance" in physical, academic, social, vocational, civic,aesthetic, and ethical areas. And Cox (1929) described a "core-curriculum"in which subject distinctions broke down as emphasis was placed less onspecific content and skills and more on "what they (students) shall want toknow, to do, and to be" (p. 13).

In the 1930s the curriculum purposes already sketched out were ex-panded to include the concept of "democratic education" as that was revi-talized in the midst of economic depression and social discontent (e.g.Faunce & Bossing, 1951; Rugg, 1936). The junior high schools were afocal point for this effort, especially in the form of problem-centered "core"programs that emerged during and after the Eight Year Study (Aikin, 1942).Though these programs were implemented by a relative minority of juniorhigh schools (Wright, 1958), many leaders in the junior high school move-ment used the "core" emphasis on personal and social/democratic educa-tion in a renewed attempt to define the general education portion of thecurriculum (Gruhn & Douglass, 1948; Hock & Hill, 1960; Lounsbury &Vars, 1978; Noar, 1953; Van Til, Vars, & Lounsbury, 1961).

As the middle school movement has unfolded, relatively little haschanged regarding the ambiguity of purposes for the curriculum. This isnot surprising since, as Kliebard (1986) argued, the story of curriculum isone of continuous struggle among various positions rather than ascendanceof one position or another. For example, the widely read Carnegie Councilreport, Turning Points (1989), sounds practically the same litany of pur-poses as Briggs (1920) or Gruhn and Douglass (1948).

The official position statement of the National Middle School Asso-ciation (1995) argued again the case of the developmentalist, as do Stevenson

20,-,204

CURRICULUM FOR WHAT?

and Carr (1993). Practically any document prepared under the regime offederal or state standards continues the Perennialist and Essentialist pur-poses of subject and skill mastery. And the contemporary work around pro-gressive curriculum integration carries forward the theme of democraticeducation and the "core" curriculum (Alexander with Carr & McAvoy, 1995;Beane, 1990; Brazee & Capelluti, 1995; Brodhagen, 1995; Middle LevelCurriculum Project, 1993; Pace, 1995; Pate, McGinnis, & Homestead, 1995;Siu-Runyan and Faircloth, 1995).

Clearly the definition of purpose for the middle level curriculum is asproblematic today as it was in the early junior high school. If anything, it iseven more complicated with the addition of references to "preparation forthe future" in popular media and professional sources (Brazee & Capelluti,1994; National Middle School Association, 1995). Tensions continue overwhether the curriculum ought to emphasize general or specialized educa-tion, academic or life-centered purposes, concerns of young adolescents ordesires of adults, mastery of discipline-based knowledge or thematic-basedproblem-solving, or preparation for future education or responsiveness topresent situations. And within these, even more tensions simmer as, forexample, in the question of whether the curriculum ought to encourageyoung adolescents to adjust to the present society or critically examine theneed for social change (Beane, 1990).

In the current public scrutiny of schools in general, the ambiguity ofpurposes for the middle school curriculum has made this level particularlyvulnerable to criticism. Today 's descendants of the original junior highschool advocates classical humanists, developmentalists, vocationalists,and social reformers are no less invested in the middle school movementand have the same expectations that their interests will be accommodated.For this reason, the curriculum of middle level schools will probably con-tinue to serve multiple purposes at the same time that it is a site for struggleover whether one or a few ought to be emphasized over others. ED

ReferencesAikin, W. M. (1942). The story of the eight year study. New York: Harper

and Brothers.

Alexander, W. M., with Carr, D., & McAvoy, K. (1995). Student-orientedcurriculum: Asking the right questions. Columbus, OH: National Middle SchoolAssociation.

Beane, J. A. (1990). A middle school curriculum: From rhetoric to reality.Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association.

205 208


Brazee, E. N., & Capelutti, J. (1994). Second generation curriculum: Whatand how we teach at the middle level. Topsfield, MA: New England League ofMiddle Schools.

Brazee, E. N., & Capelutti, J. (1995). Dissolving boundaries: Toward anintegrative curriculum. Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association.

Briggs, T. H. (1920). The junior high school. New York: Houghton Mifflin.

Brodhagen, B. L. (1995). The situation made us special. In M. Apple & J.Beane (Eds.) Democratic schools (pp.83-100). Alexandria, VA: Association forSupervision and Curriculum Development.

Bruner, Herbert B. (1925). The junior high school at work. New York: Teach-

ers College, Columbia University.



Cox, P. (1929). The junior high school and its curriculum. New York: Charles

Scribner's Sons.

Cremin, L. A. (1961). The transformation of the school: Progressivism inAmerican education, 1876-1957. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Cuban, L. (1992). What happens to reforms that last: The case of the junior

high school. American Educational Research Journal, 29 (Summer), 227-251.Faunce, R., & Bossing, N. (1951). Developing the core curriculum. New

York: Prentice-Hall.

Gruhn, W. T., & Douglass, H. R. (1948). The modern junior high school.New York: Ronald.

Hock, L., & Hill, T. (1960). The general education class in the secondaryschool. New York: Holt-Rinehart.

Kliebard, H. M. (1986). The struggle for the American curriculum, 1893-1958. Boston: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Koos, L. V. (1927). The junior high school. Boston: Ginn and Co.

Lounsbury, J.H. (1960). How the junior high school came to be. Educa-tional Leadership, XVIII, 147-148, 198.

Lounsbury, J. H., & Vars, G. F. (1978). A curriculum for the middle school

years. New York: Harper and Row.

Middle Level Curriculum Project (1993). Middle level curriculum: The search

for self and social meaning. In T. Dickinson (Ed.), Readings in middle school cur-

riculum (pp. 105 -118). Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association.

National Education Association. (1895). Report of the Committee of Ten.Washington, DC: US Governmenf Printing Office.

National Education Association (1918). Cardinal principles of secondaryeducation: A report of the Commission on the Reorganization of Secondary Edu-

cation. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.

209 206

CURRICULUM FOR WHAT?

National Middle School Association (1995). This we believe: Developmen-tally responsive middle level schools. Columbus, OH: Author.

Noar, G. (1953). The junior high school. New York: Prentice-Hall.

Pace, G. (Ed.). (1995). Whole learning in the middle school. Norwood, MA:Christopher-Gordon.

Pate, P. E., McGinnis, K., & Homestead, E. (1995). Creating CoherenceThrough Curriculum Integration. In J. A. Beane (Ed.) Toward a coherent curricu-

lum (pp.62-70). 1995 Yearbook of the Association for Supervision and Curriculum

Development. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Rugg, H. (1936). American life and the school curriculum. Boston, Ginnand Co.

Siu-Runyan, Y., & Faircloth, C. V. (Eds.). (1995). Beyond separate subjects:

Integrative learning at the middle level. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon.

Stevenson, C., & Carr, J. F. (1993). Integrated studies in the middle grades:

'Dancing through walls.' New York: Teachers College Press.

Thomas-Tindal, E. V., & Myers, J. D. (1924). Junior high school life. NewYork: Macmillan.

Van Til, W., Vars, G. F., & Lounsbury, J. H. (1961). Modern education forthe junior high school years. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill.

Wright, G. S. (1958). Block time classes and the core program. Washington,

DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

210207

Richard R. Powell and C. Victoria Faircloth

Current Issues and Research in MiddleLevel Curriculum: On Conversations,Semantics, and Roots

ID Critiquing Conversations Li

The number of books written about middle level curriculum has increaseddramatically over the last few years. Educators have sought new ways ofengaging students in school-based curriculum and instruction. As a result,a curriculum reform movement for young adolescents has surfaced (e.g.,Irvin, 1992). This movement has given rise to alternative school structureswhich involve, for example, reworking relationships among teachers (Powell& Mills, 1995), creating smaller interdisciplinary communities of learnerswithin larger schools (Vars, 1993), rethinking the organization of contentto be taught (Powell, Skoog, & Troutman, in press), and so on.

The notion of conversation has been a guiding metaphor for curricu-lum reform in general (Applebee, 1996; Good lad & Su, 1992), and forcurrent discourse in middle level curriculum reform in particular (e.g.,Dickinson, 1993). The metaphor of conversation suggests that curriculummay be viewed from several levels or viewpoints. At one level the dialoguecenters on the kinds of school and classroom curricula that are best suitedfor young adolescents. On another level, the issue at stake is students, spe-cifically at giving students an important voice in not only what is taught,but how teaching and learning unfold. (Boomer, Lester, Onore, & Cook,1992; Oldfather & McLaughlin, 1993). On yet another level the notion ofconversation is used more broadly as a means to successfully and equitablyhelp young learners ultimately take part in the greater conversation of hu-manity (Greene, 1993). Each level shares one important attribute: each islinked directly and intimately to a school's curriculum, that is, to "the formand substance of middle level learning" (Dickinson, 1993, p. ix).

209 211


These levels of curricular conversations, coupled with the diversevoices of stakeholders, have created a proliferation of middle level curricu-lum designs and definitions (Apple & Beane, 1995; Fogarty, 1993; George& Alexander, 1993; Jacobs, 1989; Schumacher, 1995; Siu-Runyan &Faircloth, 1995; Vars, 1993; Vars & Rakow, 1993; for broader discussionsof curriculum designs and definitions, see for example Applebee, 1996;Doll, 1993; Jackson, 1992; Schubert, 1986; Tanner and Tanner, 1990.) Thisproliferation has arguably caused a splintering of curriculum reform inmiddle level education and confusion in two key areas of middle level cur-riculum reform. These areas of confusion pertain to kinds of knowledge,arrangement of knowledge, and ways of knowing that are embodied inspecific curriculum designs (e.g., conventional subject-centered, interdis-ciplinary subject-centered, integrative), and that are best suited to prepar-ing young learners for becoming socially aware individuals who are ca-pable of making important decisions about social, cultural, political, andenvironmental issues.

Our purpose for this chapter is to consider more closely, within aframework of middle level curriculum theory and related research, the ar-eas of confusion noted above. We discuss three issues in middle level cur-riculum reform. First, we discuss the issue of semantics, or curriculummeaning, as related to the proliferation of middle level curriculum designs.Second, we discuss the roots of middle level curriculum designs. Using theidea of root, we consider the need to clarify the philosophical and historicalbases for curriculum reform efforts, and for conducting research in middlelevel environments. Third, we discuss issues pertaining to collaborativeand action research. Drawing from our discussion of these three issues, wesuggest a possible avenue for moving toward a conceptually rich and moremeaningful curriculum theory for middle level practitioners and research-ers.

L/ The Issues of Semantics and Clarity Li

LI On semanticsThe proliferation of curriculum designs over the past two decades has

raised the issue of curriculum semantics. This is because the same kind ofcurriculum can have different meanings for differing individuals, and be-cause different kinds of curricula can have the same meanings for differingindividuals (see the discussion of curriculum terminology offered by Drake,1993; Hough & St. Clair, 1995; Vars, 1993;). Moreover, the proliferation

210212

...ON CONVERSATIONS, SEMANTICS, AND ROOTS

of curriculum designs has been embedded in three agendas, which furtherconflates the problem of middle level curriculum semantics. First, thereare political and emancipatory agendas that are related to contextualizedlearning, what Applebee (1996) called knowledge-in-action, and whatAnderson, Reder, and Simon (1996) called situated learning. This firstagenda, which is represented by curriculum theorists such as Beane (1993),pertains to theme-based non-linear instruction, and causes educators to re-think what to teach, and how to best engage students in content germane tospecific themes. The second agenda pertains to behavioral anddecontextualized learning. Applebee (1996) gave the name, knowledge-out-of-context, to the information associated with this kind of learning. Thissecond agenda reflects traditional subject-centered curricula of junior highschools, and tends to privilege the structure of the content over the needs ofstudents. The third agenda pertains to developmental and cognitive orien-tations, which are related to the social, personal, and academic needs ofyoung adolescents (Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development, 1989;Irvin, 1995; Vars, 1993). This agenda relates to developmental restructur-ing of interpersonal relationships of teachers and students (e.g., interdisci-plinary teams) but not necessarily restructuring the content to be taught.

For each of the three agendas above, there exists a specific definitionfor curriculum and a set of corresponding values for learning content in adesignated manner. There might appear to be little need for concern overthe semantics related to these three agendas tor middle level reform. How-ever, a closer look reveals the confusion that can occur when educators atboth university and precollege levels use educational terms loosely whendiscussing middle level curriculum.

Perhaps the most striking semantical problems associated with middlelevel curriculum are those associated with what some educators call inte-grative curricula. For example, consider the question: What does it mean tobe a teacher in an integrative school? If we ask teachers at Brown BargeMiddle School (BBMS) (Pensacola, Florida) and Carver Academy (Waco,Texas) this question, we will get different responses than those given, forexample, by teachers at Thurman White Middle School (TWMS)(Henderson, Nevada) (see Powell, 1997; Powell, Skoog, Troutman, & Jones,1996). This is because curricula at BBMS and Carver Academy are non-linear and theme-based, following the work of Beane (1993). At TWMS,on the other hand, the curriculum is interdisciplinary, and consequentlysubject-centered. Learning for students at TWMS is linear and hierarchi-cal, although teachers at the school still develop some interdisciplinary units;teaching and learning at BBMS is nonlinear and holistic. Living the educa-

211 213


tive experience of a non-linear, holistic curriculum, as demonstrated atschools such as BBMS and Carver Academy, is vastly different for bothteachers and learners than living the educative experience of a linear cur-riculum (Powell & Skoog, 1995).

On philosophical, cultural, social, and academic levels, education atBBMS.and Carver Academy, two schools richly embedded in integrativecurriculum theory, differs notably from education at TWMS, a school richlyembedded in interdisciplinary curriculum theory. Yet teachers in interdisci-plinary contexts such as TWMS may very well claim that they, too, areintegrative in their orientation. The questions then surface: What really isan integrative curriculum? Can the notions of integrative and interdiscipli-nary, two curriculum practices that are grounded in radically different philo-sophical and theoretical assumptions, be used interchangeably on any level,as suggested by Hough and St. Clair (1995)? Are the differences betweenthese two curriculum designs important enough to draw distinction betweenthem in the literature? We believe that the differences are important enough,and the designs vary enough, that clarity in meaning, and thus in practice,is now needed.

1:11 On clarityAsk a middle school teacher to define or explain what is meant by

curriculum that is developmentally appropriate for young adolescents andexpect to hear conflicting, and sometimes ambiguous responses. This isparticularly unsettling in light of the fact that the middle school movementhas grown rapidly in the last few decades. Educators frequently use termslike interdisciplinary and integrated interchangeably. Inservice workshopsfor teachers frequently draw upon the works of writers who contradict oneanother about what the curriculum should be. Therefore, it is imperativethat the work of educational researchers in middle level contexts move to-ward clarity in definition, and toward clarity in educational goals and prac-tices of middle level curriculum. This kind of clarity will properlycontextualize research momentum, thus permitting readers to more easily,and more accurately, make sense of empirical reports.

In our work in various middle school contexts, we have discoveredthat middle level practitioners working within curriculum contexts that areradically different from traditional contexts and from interdisciplinary con-texts have clearer ideas about the nature of their school curriculum. Thisreflects the work of Quartz (1995, 1996), who suggested that true reform,if it is to be long-lasting, requires clarity of purpose, of definition, and ofmission. This same reform, Quartz argued, requires that teachers in a school

212

214

...ON CONVERSATIONS, SEIVIANTICS, AND Room

where such reform is happening must be willing to live out, in a collectiveand collaborative fashion, the purpose, definition, and mission of the re-form effort. Turning again to our example of BBMS above, we discoveredthat most teachers at this school were very clear about the definition oftheir integrative curriculum, and were aware of the kind of learning, whichwas integrative, holistic, and emancipatory in nature, that the school hadadopted for students (Powell, Skoog, Troutman, & Jones, 1996). The studyby Powell and associates (1996) revealed that teachers at BBMS had acollective consciousness for their educational mission; this consciousnessenabled them to work together, along with their students, as a stronglycohesive group. The kind of clarity demonstrated by BBMS educators isthe kind of clarity we suggest that school-based educators and universityworkers both need if the current conversation about middle level curricu-lum reform is to be meaningful.

L1 The Issue of Roots

Explicating the roots, what we more formally call etymology, of curricu-lum designs, movements, and traditions is an essential process in cleaningup middle level semantics. In this section we argue that conversations aboutmiddle level curriculum reform, whether these conversations occur in schoolclassrooms, in scholarly journals, or ethnographic accounts of middle schoollife, mostly overlook the connection of the conversation to its historicalroots, thus leaving educators to draw their own conclusions about whatcurriculum design is being explored, discussed, or reformed.

We shall draw from two recently published ethnographic works todemonstrate what we have described in the foregoing paragraph. First, inan important study on the influence of student transitioning from a pro-gressive middle school to a conventional high school, Wells (1996) pro-vided an account of the gradual deconstruction of literacy skills in fivestudents. Wells carefully and somewhat painstakingly documented how oneschool culture, namely a conventional high school, gradually eroded theliteracy skills that a selected group of students acquired in their "progres-sive" middle school. Wells' valuable study, while serving to raise manyimportant and certainly pressing questions about learning in progressiveand traditional schools, assumed that readers understand the curriculumassumptions underlying the schools described in the study, although a dis-cussion of the historical antecedents of the schools' curricula was mostlylacking from Wells' report.

213 215


The second study we briefly highlight here is that reported by Roe(1994), who conducted a microethnography of a social studies seventh gradeclassroom. The study provided a needed and useful account of the relation-ship between textbooks and learning in a middle school classroom. Theresearch setting, as described by Roe in this study, was "a seventh gradeclassroom in a small town in central Illinois" (p. 23). Few other details areoffered in the report about the curriculum orientation of the school, abouthow the use of textbooks in the school was a function of the school'soverarching assumptions for learning and teaching, or about the generaltradition of the school's curriculum. Textbook usage has long been linkedto conventional subject-centered curriculum designs, but has not been linkedto unconventional integrative curriculum designs. Knowing whether theschool was conventional or integrative clearly has an impact on the per-spective from which readers can interpret Roe's findings.

Reporting the curriculum traditions and linking these traditions toearlier curriculum work would have been important additions to the twostudies above. For example, in Wells' study of a progressive middle school,was this school part of the progressive educational movement in America,thus linking it to the earlier writings of Dewey (e.g., 1916)? Was the schoolmore integrative in nature, thus linking it to the earlier writings of Hopkins(1937) and more recently to Beane (1993)? These questions, while impor-tant in helping us understand more fully the place of Wells' study in thegreater curriculum conversation, remain unanswered. The same questionsremain unanswered for the study reported by Roe. Thus, in a theoreticalsense, both studies mentioned above are decontextualized from the middlelevel curriculum conversation. That is, while Wells' study has added sig-nificantly to our understanding of transitioning from one school design toanother school design, we are unsure how all of this fits into the greaterscheme of middle level curriculum reform, both past and present, becausewe are not aware of the curriculum assumptions that framed the schoolsthat were reported in the study.

I:I The Issue of Site-based Collaborative I:1and Action Research

Throughout this chapter we have discussed issues of semantics, clarity, andetymology as they pertain to the middle level curriculum conversation. Onemeans for approaching these issues is through site-based collaborative andaction research. Clearly, these forms of research will not provide answers

214

216

...ON CONVERSATIONS, SEMANTICS, AND Room

for all of the questions related to these issues, but this research will helpmiddle level educators address questions related to semantics, clarity, andetymology, as we have discussed them here.

The value of collaborative and action research, two related forms ofinquiry, is that teachers and university professors tend to work together,collegially, to explore questions of common concern. As Mclaughlin, Hall,Earle, Miller, and Wheeler (1995) noted, "Whatever the research question,action research in K-12 classrooms begins with teachers' questions, not thequestions and hypotheses of researchers" (p. 7). This approach to explor-ing middle level learning environments can be an important vehicle to be-gin asking questions about the meaning of curriculum, about the assump-tions underlying daily practice, and about the historical and philosophicalantecedents to middle level curriculum designs.

An example of such a site-based research endeavor is provided byBurnaford, Beane, and Brodhagen (1994). Burnaford and colleagues dem-onstrated how teachers and university workers can work together to ex-plore semantical and etymological dimensions of middle level curriculum,thus bringing clarity of purpose to the teaching moment. In this report, theauthors provided an overview of action research. In the second part of thereport, Beane provided an overview of the central tenets of integrative cur-riculum. In the third section of the report, Brodhagen builds on the centraltenets described by Beane to explore her classroom practice. The kind ofaction research described by Burnaford and associates reflects the kind ofclarity we discuss above, and contributes meaningfully to the middle levelconversation on curriculum.

Toward Conceptually Rich Middle LevelCurriculum Conversation

In this paper we have raised issues pertaining to the middle level curricu-lum conversation that has been unfolding for the past few decades. Weraised issues of ambiguity in the conversation, of a lack of clear semanticsfor curriculum theory, of the need to gain clarity when discussing.curricu-lum issues, and the proper place of theoretical and philosophical anteced-ents to modern day curriculum initiatives. If we are to move to an era in ourcurriculum conversation that is meaningful and purposeful, and that is con-ceptually rich and useful, then we, as middle level educators, must becomecurriculum theorists in the truest sense (see Powell & Skoog, 1995). Tomove toward a conceptually rich curriculum conversation, and consequently

215 217


to a conceptually rich curriculum theory that guides our daily practices,then we must also move toward:

clarity of definition of developmentally appropriate curriculum foryoung adolescents,clarity of curriculum semantics,clarity of curriculum definition,clarity of curriculum etymology in daily discourse and in scholarlyreports,theoretically rich site-based collaborative and action research,meaningful dialogue filled with critical perspectives and pressing ques-tions pertaining to efficacy of curriculum design.

D Conclusion ID

We agree with Van Zandt & Totten (1995) that for too long, the middlelevel community has implemented designs of curriculum and instructionin a wholesale, superficial fashion without necessarily grounding this imple-mentation in conceptually rich, historically accurate, and philosophicallyconsistent ways. The issues we have reported in this chapter, which haveemerged from recent research and practice in middle level contexts, arepressing and immediate. Moving toward a conceptually rich and meaning-ful curriculum conversation means moving toward addressing these press-ing issues. While we agree with Beane (1993) that there is no recipe indoing this kind of curriculum work, we cannot move forward in this arenawith these pressing issues confusing the research agendas and resultingeducational practices. E

ReferencesAnderson, J. R., Reder, L. M., & Simon, H. A. (1996). Situated learning and

education. Educational Researcher, 25 (4), 5-11.

Apple, M. W., & Beane, J. A. (Eds.). (1995). Democratic schools. Alexan-dria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Applebee, A. N. (1996). Curriculum as conversation. Columbia: NY: Teachers

College Press.

Beane, J. A. (1993). A middle school curriculum: From rhetoric to reality.(2nd. ed.) Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association.

Boomer, G., Lester, N., Onore, C., and Cook, J. (1992). Negotiating the cur-

riculum. London: The Falmer Press.

218 216


Burnaford, G., Beane, J., & Brodhagen, B. (1994). Teacher action research:

Inside an integrative curriculum. Middle School Journal, 26 (2), 5-13.Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development. (1989). Turning points: Pre-


Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York: Macmillan.

Dickinson, T. (Ed.). (1993). Readings in middle school curriculum: A con-

tinuing conversation. Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association.

Doll, W. (1993). A post-modern perspective on curriculum. New York: Teach-

ers College Press.Drake, S. (1993). Planning integrated curriculum. The call to adventure.

Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

George, P., & Alexander, W. (1993). The exemplary middle school. (2nd.ed.) Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt, Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.

Goodlad, J. I, & Su, Z. (1992). Organization of the curriculum. In P. Jackson

(Ed.), Handbook of research on curriculum, (pp. 327-346). New York: Macmillan.

Greene, M. (1993). The passions of pluralism: Multiculturalism and the ex-

panding community. Educational Researcher, 22 (1), 13-18.Hopkins, L. T. (1937). Integration, its meaning and application. New York:

Appleton-Century.

Fogarty, R. (1993). The mindful school: How to integrate the curricula. Pa-

latine, IL: IRI/Skylight Publishing.

Hough, D., & St. Clair, B. (1995). The effects of integrated curricula onyoung adolescent problems solving. Research in Middle Level Education Quar-terly, 19 (1), 1-26.

Irvin, J. (Ed.). (1992). Transforming middle level education: Prospectivesand possibilities. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Irvin, J. (1995). Cognitive growth during early adolescence: The regulator

of developmental tasks. Middle School Journal, 27 (1), 54-55.Jackson, P. (Ed.). (1992). Handbook of research on curriculum. New York:

Macmillan.

Jacobs, H. (1989). Interdisciplinary curriculum: Design and implementa-tion. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

McLaughlin, H. J., Earle, K., Hall, M., Miller, V., & Wheeler, M. (1995).Hearing from our students: Team action research in a middle school. Middle School

Journal, 26 (3), 7-12.Oldfather, P., & McLaughlin, H. J. (1993). Gaining and losing voice: A lon-

gitudinal study of students' continuing impulse to learn across elementary andmiddle level contexts. Research in Middle Level Education, 17 (1), 1-25.

217 219


Powell, R. (1997). Teams and the affirmation of middle level students' voices:

The case of Jimmie and related thoughts of a concerned educator. In T. Dickinson

& T. Erb (Eds.), We gain more than we give: Teaming in middle schools. Colum-

bus, OH: National Middle School Association.

Powell, R., & Mills, R. (1995). Professional knowledge sharing among in-

terdisciplinary team teachers: A study of intra-team mentoring. Research in Middle

Level Education, 18 (3), 27-40.

Powell, R., & Skoog, G. (1995). Students' perspectives on integrative cur-ricula: The case of Brown Barge Middle School. Research in Middle Level Educa-

tion Quarterly, 19 (1), 85-115.

Powell, R., Skoog, G., & Troutman, P. (in press). On streams and odysseys:

Reflections on reform and research in middle level integrative learning environ-ments. Research in Middle Level Education Quarterly.

Powell, R., Skoog, G., Troutman, P., & Jones, C. (1996, April). Standing onthe edge of middle level curriculum reform: Factors influencing the sustainability

of a non-linear integrative learning environment. Paper presented at the annualmeeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York.

Quartz, K. (1996, April). Becoming better: The struggle to create a newculture of school reform. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the AmericanEducational Research Association, New York.

Quartz, K. (1995). Normative, technical, and political dimensions of creat-ing new educational communities. In J. Oakes & K. H. Quartz (Eds.), Creatingnew educational communities: Ninety-fourth yearbook of the National Society for

the Study of Education (pp. 240-252 ). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Roe, M. F. (1994). A microethnography of a seventh grade social studiesclassroom. Research in Middle Level Education, 18 (1), 21-38.

Schubert, W. H. (1986). Curriculum: Perspective, paradigm, and possibil-ity. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co.

Schumacher, D. H. (1995). Five levels of curriculum integration defined,refined, and described. Research in Middle Level Education, 18 (3), 73-93.

Siu-Runyan, Y., & Faircloth, C. V. (1995). Beyond separate subjects: Inte-grative learning at the middle level. Norwood: MA. Christopher Gordon Publish-ers.

Tanner, D., & Tanner, L. (1990). History of the school curriculum. NewYork: Macmillan.

Van Zandt, L., & Totten, S. (1995). The current status of middle level educa-

tion research: A critical review. Research in Middle Level Education, 18 (3), 1-26.

Vars, G. F. (1993). Interdisciplinary teaching:Why and how. Columbus, OH:

National Middle School Association.

220 218


Vars, G. F., & Rakow, S. R. (1993). Making connections: Integrative cur-riculum and the gifted student. Roeper Review, 16 (1), 48-53.

Wells, M. C. (1996). Literacies lost: When students move from a progressive

middle school to a traditional high school. New York: Teachers College Press.

221

219

RRRRRRRRRRRR tftRRRRORRRR OR.RR. .8 MRR: 41 tRR

tRR

mameammwmwamgTeacher Education

McEwin

Dickinson

Hart

C. Kenneth McEwinAppalachian State UniversityBoone, North Carolina

Thomas S. DickinsonIndiana State UniversityTerre Haute, Indiana

Laurie E. HartUniversity of GeorgiaAthens, Georgia

222

C. Kenneth McEwin and Thomas S. Dickinson

Middle Level Teacher Preparationand Licensure

The continuing absence of sufficient numbers of middle level teach-ers who have the specialized knowledge, skills, and dispositionsneeded to be highly successful teachers of young adolescents has

served as a major barrier to the full implementation of developmentallyresponsive middle level schooling since at least the turn of the century(McEwin & Dickinson, 1995, 1996). Although the need for specially pre-pared middle level teachers has been recognized in the literature for over70 years (Douglas, 1920), the majority of young adolescents continue to betaught by teachers whose initial professional preparation and interests restwith teaching other developmental age groups, or who were interested in amiddle level teaching career but found specialized middle level teacherpreparation programs unavailable.

In many states, teacher preparation institutions, state departments ofeducation, and the teaching profession have ignored the importance of suchspecialized programs and the middle level licensure which sustains them(Valentine & Mogar, 1992). One result of this neglect and malpractice isthat thousands of young adolescents are being taught by teachers who are,at least initially, inadequately prepared to be highly successful (McEwin,1992; McEwin, Dickinson, Erb, & Scales, 1995; Scales & McEwin, 1994,1996). For example, a 1991 eight-state survey of middle )evel teachersrevealed that only 17% had received specialized professional preparationto teach young adolescents (Scales, 1992). Additionally, 62% of respon-dents to a study of 1,798 middle level schools estimated that less than 25%of teachers at those schools had specialized middle level professional prepa-ration (McEwin, Dickinson, & Jenkins, 1996).

223 2 `) 3


L-.1 Barriers to special middle level teacher preparationA complex set of reasons have caused and perpetuated the lack of

universal implementation of specialized middle level teacher preparationand licensure. It is important that these roadblocks be recognized and plannedfor so that future efforts to establish and maintain specialized middle levelteacher preparation and licensure can be highly successful. Some of themajor barriers are: (a) the unavailability of specially prepared middle levelteachers; (b) the negative stereotyped image of young adolescents; (c) thepresence of too few advocates at teacher preparation institutions and stateagencies; (d) the desire for flexibility in assignment of middle level teach-ers; (e) the public's lack of knowledge about appropriate middle level school-ing; (f) the lack of program comprehensiveness; (g) teacher resistance tochange; (h) problems, real or perceived, with other teacher preparation pro-grams; and, (i) the limited number of instructors in teacher preparationprograms with the depth of middle level knowledge and experience needed.These barriers should not discourage those advocating specialized middlelevel teacher preparation and licensure for they have been overcome inseveral states (McEwin & Dickinson, 1995, 1996).

ED The status of middle level teacher preparationResults from research studies investigating the extent of specialized

middle level teacher preparation programs have shown that the number ofthese programs is increasing, but at a slow pace when compared with thegrowth of middle level schools (Alexander & McEwin, 1988; McEwin,1992; McEwin & Dickinson, 1995). For the first time in history, however,the majority of teacher preparation programs in the nation offer specializedmiddle level teacher preparation programs. In the 1995/96 academic year,51% of the nation's teacher preparation institutions reported offering spe-cialized middle level programs at some degree level, with these programsranging from major specializations to a series of special middle level coursesand field experiences (McEwin,Dickinson, & Swaim, in press). This per-centage compares with 34% in 1991 (McEwin & Dickinson, 1995).

1:1 Essential program elementsA growing consensus regarding the need for the specialized profes-

sional preparation of middle level teachers and the licensure creates andsupports that preparation (Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development,1989; DeMedio & Mazur-Stewart, 1990; Jenkins & Jenkins, 1991; McEwin& Dickinson, 1996; National Middle School Association, 1991). A strongconsensus also exists about the essential programmatic components that

224 224

MIDDLE LEVEL TEACHER PREPARATION AND LICENSURE

should be included in specialized middle level teacher preparation(Alexander & McEwin, 1988; Arth, Lounsbury, Swaim, & McEwin, 1995;Dickinson & Butler, 1994; Hart, Smith, Grynkewich, Primm, Mizell, Jack-son, & Mahaffey, 1994; Lawton, 1993; McEwin & Dickinson, 1996; Na-tional Board for Professional Teaching Standards, 1994; National MiddleSchool Association, 1996; Page, Page, Dickinson, Warkentin, Tibbles, 1992).The components listed below include only those that are unique and/orneed special focus in middle level teacher preparation. They do not includeother elements that are essential to any type of teacher preparation (e. g.,diversity issues, effective use of instructional technology). They are: (a) athorough study of early adolescence and the needs of young adolescents;(b) a comprehensive study of middle level philosophy and organization;(c) a thorough study of middle level curriculum; (d) an intensive focus onplanning, teaching, and assessment using developmentally and culturallyresponsive practices; (e) early and continuing middle level field experi-ences in a variety of good middle level settings; (f) study and practice inthe collaborative role of middle level teachers in working with colleagues,families, and community members; (g) preparation in two or more broadteaching fields; and, (h) a collaborative teacher preparation partnershipbetween faculty at middle level schools and university-based middle levelteacher educators that is responsible for all aspects of a site-based middlelevel teacher preparation program (McEwin & Dickinson, 1996).

It is important to recognize that these elements are not experimentalin nature nor based solely on theory. They have been programmatic com-ponents of many highly successful middle level teacher preparation pro-grams for many years (McEwin & Dickinson, 1995; Swaim & Stefanich,1996). What is really needed is significant numbers of persons willing totake the steps necessary to make these specialized programs a universalreality in teacher preparation.

IJ Middle level licensureA major reason that specialized middle level teacher preparation pro-

grams are not more prevalent is the lack of special mandatory licensure formiddle level teachers. Approximately 33 states now have some type ofspecific middle level license, but requirements in many of these states arerendered largely ineffective by problems such as the overlapping of gradelevels with elementary and/or secondary licenses (e. g., K-8, 6-12) (McEwin& Dickinson, 1995; Valentine & Mogar, 1992). This situation exists de-spite the fact that specialized middle level licensure directly influences theestablishment of middle level teacher preparation programs and signifi-

225 225


cantly shapes their curriculum (McEwin & Scales, 1995). Stated anotherway, specialized middle level teacher preparation follows specializedmiddle level licensure requirements. This is an important lesson that shouldbe learned by those making decisions about the nature of licensure re-quirements.

The majority of prospective and practicing middle level teachers areunlikely to pursue specialized middle level professional preparation if thiscommitment is not rewarded nor required to practice their profession(McEwin, Dickinson, Erb & Scales, 1995). Altruism alone is seldom suf-ficient motivation for middle level teachers to seek out specialized profes-sional preparation when there is no recognition of their efforts to acquirespecialized middle level knowledge and skills (Alexander & McEwin,1988). Experience also clearly demonstrates that most teacher preparationinstitutions are unlikely to develop middle level teacher preparation pro-grams when there is no specialized license required for middle level teach-ing (McEwin, Dickinson, Erb, & Scales, 1995).

The expanding knowledge base on specialized middle levelprofessional preparation

The knowledge base on middle level teacher preparation has expandedsignificantly in the past few years. For example, results from a nationalsurvey of 2,139 practicing middle level teachers revealed that specializedmiddle level teacher preparation is highly valued by middle level teachers.Teachers who were prepared in "mixed" professional preparation programs(e. g., elementary/middle/secondary) did not rate the quality of their prepa-ration highly, while those who graduated from programs that focused spe-cifically and extensively on middle level teaching rated their programsmuch more positively. Respondents were also more likely to have sevenprogram components that are considered essential for successful middlelevel teacher preparation programs: young adolescent development, cur-riculum and organization of the middle school, middle level teaching meth-ods, middle level reading, two academic concentrations, middle level fieldexperiences, and middle level student teaching (Scales & McEwin, 1994).

Results from the study further revealed that the more middle levelcourses preservice teachers had taken, the more likely they were to reportthat their program was highly comprehensive, and that the greater the num-ber of courses devoted to the middle level, the more favorably they ratedtheir middle level teacher preparation programs on each of the topic inves-tigated. A major finding from this study was that add-on courses and en-dorsements, while bureaucratic shortcuts, are a less effective form of prepa-

226

226


ration than a major comprehensive program (McEwin & Scales, 1995; Scales& McEwin, 1996).

A recent empirical research study also offers support for the impor-tance of specialized middle level teacher preparation (Stahler, 1995). Thisstudy examined the knowledge base of two groups of middle level studentteachers, one group with specialized middle level teacher preparation andthe other with elementary (1-8) or secondary (7-12) rather than middlelevel preparation. Results showed specially prepared teachers made sig-nificantly more favorable scores on knowledge, planning, videotaped teach-ing performance, and attitude toward middle level teaching than generallyprepared preservice teachers. Further, the specially prepared teachers pos-sessed strong beliefs about the middle school movement and appropriateteaching for young adolescents. More studies of this nature are needed tostrengthen the move to improve teaching and learning significantly in middlelevel schools through improving teacher preparation programs.

ConclusionOnly when middle level licensure becomes universally required will

young adolescents have some assurance of being taught by teachers whohave the specialized knowledge, skills, and dispositions to be highly suc-cessful. Widespread consensus that spans several decades has been reachedby teacher educators, middle level professional personnel, and other stake-holders regarding the importance of such programs. This consensus alsoincludes other important issues including the programmatic componentsneeded and other related factors.

History has taught a major lesson that needs to be recognized by allthose responsible for the education and welfare of young adolescents andtheir teachers. Without distinctive, mandatory licensure requirements toomany middle level classrooms will continue to be staffed by teachers whohave no specialized preparation for their assignments. The false hope of"endorsements" which rely on prospective and practicing middle level teach-ers to "add a course or two" to elementary or secondary licenses and magi-cally become successful teachers of young adolescents is a delusion.

Young adolescents are the ones who ultimately "pay the price" forthe unwillingness of those responsible for their education to take coura-geous stands that will guarantee them access to teachers who have the spe-cialized knowledge, skills, and dispositions to help them realize their fullpotentials. While stopping short of full mandatory middle level teacherpreparation and licensure may make staffing and employment "easier," itclearly compromises the education and welfare of young adolescents. As

227

227


noted by the authors, "A wide range of individuals and groups now realizethat to neglect teachers of young adolescents is to neglect the educationand welfare of young adolescents themselves. Efforts to improve one with-out the other would be misguided and unsuccessful" (McEwin & Dickinson,1996, p. 39). E

ReferencesAlexander, W. M. & McEwin, C. K. (1988). Preparing to teach at the middle

level. Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association.

Arth, A. A., Lounsbury, J. H., McEwin, C. K., & Swaim, J. H. (1995). Middle

level teachers: Portraits of excellence. Columbus, OH: National Middle SchoolAssociation, and National Association of Secondary School Principals.



DeMedio, D., & Mazur-Stewart, M. (1990). Attitudes toward middle grades

certification: A national survey. NASSP Bulletin, 74 (525), 64-71.

Dickinson, T. S., & Butler, D. (1994). The journey to the other side of the

desk: The education of middle school teachers. In F. M. Smith & C. 0. Hausafus(Eds.), The education of early adolescents: Home economics in the middle school,

Yearbook of the American Home Economics Association (pp. 183-191). Peoria,IL: Macmillan/McGraw-Hill.

Douglas, A (1920). The junior high school. Bloomington, IL: National Study

of Education.

Hart, L. E., Smith, D. W., Grynkewich, L. C., Primm, S., Mizelle, N. B.,Jackson, D. F., & Mahaffey, M. L. (1994). Principles of educating teachers: Middle

grades mathematics and science. Georgia Initiative in Mathematics and Science.Athens, GA: University of Georgia.

Jenkins, D. M., & Jenkins, K. D. (1991). The NMSA Delphi report: Roadmap

to the future. Middle School Journal, 22 (4), 27-36.

Lawton, E. (1993). The effective middle level teacher. Reston, VA: National

Association of Secondary School Principals.

McEwin, C. K. (1992). Middle level teacher education and certification. In

J. L. Irvin (Ed.), Transforming middle level education: Perspectives and possi-bilities (pp. 369-380). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

McEwin, C. K., & Dickinson, T. S. (1995). The professional preparation of

middle level teachers: Profiles of successful programs. Columbus, OH: NationalMiddle School Association.

McEwin, C. K., & Dickinson, T. S. (1996). Forgotten youth, forgotten teach-

ers: Transformation of the professional preparation of teachers of young adoles-cents. Middle Grade School State Policy Initiative, Carnegie Corporation of New

York. 22 8 228


McEwin, C. K., Dickinson, T. S., Erb, T. 0., & Scales, P. C. (1995). A vision

of excellence: Organizing principles for middle grades teacher preparation. Co-lumbus, OH: National Middle School Association.

McEwin, C. K., Dickinson, T. S., & Jenkins, D. M. (1996). America' s middle

schools: Practices and progress A 25 Year Perspective. Columbus, OH: Na-

tional Middle School Association.McEwin, C. K., Dickinson, T. S., & Swaim, J. H. (in press). Specialized

middle level teacher preparation programs in the United States: A status report.

Boone, NC: Appalachian State University.McEwin, C. K., & Scales, P. S. (1995). Middle school teachers' views of

specialized professional preparation. Quality Teaching, 5 (1), 6-7.

National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (1994). Early adoles-cence/ generalist standards for national board certification. Washington, DC: Au-

thor

National Middle School Association (1991). Professional certification and

preparation for the middle level: A position paper of National Middle School As-

sociation. Columbus, OH: Author.National Middle School Association. (1996). National Middle School Asso-

ciationINCATE-Approved Teacher Preparation Curriculum Guidelines Columbus,

OH: Author.

Page, F., Page, J., Dickinson, T. S., Warkentin, R., &, Tibbles, A. (1992).4000 voices. Middle School Journal, 24 (1), Insert.

Scales, P. C. (1992). Windows of opportunity: Improving middle gradesteacher preparation. Carrboro, NC: Center for Early Adolescence.

Scales, P. C., & McEwin, C. K. (1994). Growing pains: The making ofAmerica' s middle school teachers. Columbus, OH: National Middle School Asso-

ciation.

Scales, P. C., & McEwin, C. K. (1996). The effects of comprehensive middle

level teacher preparation programs. Research in Middle Level Education Quar-

terly, 19 (2), 1-21.Stahler, T. (1995). A comparative analysis of specifically prepared and gen-

erally prepared middle school preservice teachers. Action in Teacher Education,

/ 7 (3), 23-32.Swaim, J. H., & Stefanich, G. P. (1996). Meeting the standards: Middle level

teacher education. Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association.Valentine, J. W., & Mogar, D. (1992). Middle level certification: An encour-

aging evolution. Middle School Journal, 24 (2), 36-43.

229 229

Laurie E. Hart

Multicultural Issues in Middle LevelTeacher Education

Middle level teacher education is a relatively new field with ori-gins in the 1960s and 1970s movement to establish middleschools throughout the United States. The roots of middle level

teacher education come mainly from concerns about the intellectual, physi-cal, social, and emotional development of young adolescents. So muchemphasis has been placed on these developmental needs of young adoles-cents that some other important characteristics of middle level students andteachers have received too little attention. A crucial area that needs moreattention from middle level educators is the great and growing cultural di-versity of the student population in schools at the same time the teachingforce is becoming less diverse. Multicultural education can help middlelevel teacher educators better address issues of cultural diversity for bothstudents and teachers. This can help improve teachers' understanding andability to teach all students and, therefore, the quality of school experi-ences for young adolescents.

The purpose of this chapter is to examine the contributions researchand theory on multicultural education can make to enhance middle levelteacher education. In this chapter as I draw from scholarship on multiculturaleducation, the intent is not to lessen the current emphasis on the nature ofthe young adolescent as a basis for designing middle level schools andmiddle level teacher education. Rather, the intent is to deepen our under-standing of who young adolescents are and how best to help them learn bypaying attention to their widely diverse cultural characteristics in additionto the great variability in their physical, intellectual, social, and emotionaldevelopment.

231 230


IJ Multicultural educationA review of literature indicates that many different approaches to

multicultural education have been proposed by authors (Banks, 1995). Atthe same time, however, there is a "developing consensus about the nature,aims, and scope" (Banks, 1995, p. 3) of multicultural education. One partof this consensus is agreement that "a major goal of multicultural educa-tion . . . is to reform the school and other educational institutions so thatstudents from diverse racial, ethnic, and social-class groups will experi-ence educational equality" (Banks, 1995, p. 3). Further, agreement existsthat gender equity is a major goal of multicultural education (Banks, 1995).For the purposes of this chapter, multicultural education is defined as edu-cation to provide female and male students from diverse groups an equi-table education of high quality to prepare them well for their present andfuture lives.

Zi Demographic characteristics of students, teachers, andteacher educators

The United States is a society of great cultural diversity. The compo-sition of the school population in the United States is becoming more di-verse while the teaching force is becoming less diverse (Banks, 1991). Teach-ers of color are underrepresented in the teaching force in general and par-ticularly in mathematics and science, and the percentage of African Ameri-can and Hispanic college students preparing to teach declined steadily from1972 to 1987 (Darling-Hammond & Sclan, 1996). It is projected that in theyear 2000, teachers of color will comprise only 5% of the United Statesteaching force and that "85% of the nation's teachers will . . . be white,mainstream, and largely female" (Banks, 1991, p. 136). This teaching forcethat is largely white and middle class will work with "students who differfrom them racially, culturally, and in social class status" (Banks, 1991, p.136). These contrasting profiles for teachers and students make it crucialfor teacher education to both recruit more people of color into the teachingprofession and help all teachers gain the knowledge, skills, and disposi-tions to work effectively with students from diverse racial, cultural, andsocial class groups (Banks, 1991; Boyer & Baptiste, 1996; Darling-Hammond, 1995; Ladson-Billings, 1995). The demographic profile of theteacher education professoriate makes it especially critical for teacher edu-cation to accomplish these important tasks. Approximately 93% of teachereducators are white, 3% are African American, 3% are Hispanic, and 1%are American Indians, Alaskan natives, and other people of color com-bined (American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education [AACTE],

232

231

MULTICULTURAL ISSUES IN MIDDLE LEVEL TEACHER EDUCATION

1987). There is no indication that these figures have changed markedly inthe last decade.

Need for multicultural educationAmple evidence exists that the quality of education differs for stu-

dents of differing race, ethnicity, and social class in the United States (e.g.,Larkin & Sleeter, 1995; Rios, 1993). African American, Hispanic Ameri-can, and Native American students score lower on standardized tests anddrop out of school at higher rates than European American students (e.g.,Garcia, 1995; Lomawaima, 1995; Snipp, 1995). According to Darling-Hammond (1995):

As a consequence of structural inequalities in access to knowl-edge and resources, students from racial and ethnic 'minority'groups in the United States face persistent and profound barri-ers to educational opportunity....Documentation of and seriouspolicy attention to these ongoing systematic inequalities are criti-cal for improving the quality and outcomes of education for allstudents.Without acknowledgment that students experience verydifferent educational realities, policies will continue to be basedon the presumption that it is students, not their schools or class-room circumstances, that are the sources of unequal educationalattainment. p. 465

Changes in teacher education are needed to meet the challenges ofunequal educational opportunities and differing cultural backgrounds ofteachers and students. Too often we assume that teachers will learn strate-gies to work with students from diverse cultural backgrounds without re-ceiving specific, careful instruction. Often prospective teachers assume thatthey will teach in middle level schools like they attended when they werestudents and that their students will come from backgrounds similar to theirown. What is most likely is that in the course of their careers, the majorityof teachers will work with students who are from different racial and socialclass backgrounds than their own. Further, the typical race and social classbackgrounds of teacher educators make it unlikely that adequate knowl-edge, skills, and dispositions for working with students from diverse cul-tural groups will be provided in teacher education programs unlessmulticultural issues become a specific focus.

NCATE and multicultural educationThe National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education

233 232


(NCATE) is reSponsible for setting standards for teacher education pro-grams in the United States. Since 1979, NCATE has required institutionsapplying for accreditation to "show evidence of planning for multiculturaleducation in their curricula" (Gollnick, 1991, p. 226). NCATE has steadilyexpanded the requirements for multicultural education over the past 15years (Gollnick, 1995). The 1992 NCATE standards included the follow-ing requirements:

The initial teacher preparation program must provide knowl-edge about and appropriate skills in...cultural influences onlearning....Courses and experiences ensure the developmentof ... [and] knowledge of different learning styles.

The unit [i.e., the school, college, or department of educa-tion] provides for study and experiences that help educationstudents understand and apply appropriate strategies for in-dividual learning needs, especially for culturally diverse....populations.

The curriculum for professional studies component(s) incor-porates multicultural and global perspectives. p. 50

Further, the 1992 NCATE standards require that "education students par-ticipate in field-based and/or clinical experiences with culturally diverseand exceptional populations" (p. 51) and that both the student body andfaculty in teacher eduction programs be culturally diverse. The NationalMiddle School Association/NCATE-Approved Teacher Education Curricu-lum Guidelines do not directly address multicultural issues since institu-tions submitting their middle level teacher preparation programs for re-view by NMSA must also meet the above NCATE multicultural standards.

Li Middle level teacher education and multicultural educationThere is a growing acknowledgment among middle level educators

of the importance of multicultural education. In a major review of litera-ture on middle level teacher education, Williamson (1996) included a dis-cussion of multicultural education. He encouragedus to view multiculturaleducation not "as the study of others, but as the study of us" (p. 388).Williamson concluded that as the student population becomes increasinglydiverse, "the role of all schools is to accept those students, to work withthem and their families in order to address their needs, and to ensure thatall students are provided with the knowledge and skills to be successfulcontributing members of society" (Williamson, 1996, p. 388).

233 234


In addition, the work of Beane (1993) on middle school curriculumhas emphasized the importance of not only curriculum integration and stu-dents' involvement in curriculum decisions but also issues of equity andsocial justice in education. In California, a strong example of a middlelevel teacher education program that integrates multicultural education intoinitial teacher preparation can be found at California State University SanMarcos (McDaniel, Stowell, Rios, & Christopher, 1994; Stowell, McDaniel,& Rios, 1995). CSU San Marcos is a new university located in North SanDiego County; its middle level teacher education program was developedby a group of five university and seven public school faculty members dur-ing the 1991-1992 academic year. The CSU San Marcos middle level pro-gram models curriculum integration in each of the two semesters of thepost-baccalaureate program. Multicultural education is a theme that runsthroughout the program. In the second semester a course on multiculturaleducation is integrated throughout course and field work for prospectiveteachers. Stowell, McDaniel, and Rios (1995) provided a detailed descrip-tion of the program's thematic units, including sample topics and activitiesand the major theoretical foundations on which the program is based.

[:1 Effective multicultural teacher educationLadson-Billings (1995) and Zeichner (1992) described key elements

of effective multicultural teacher education. These elements include proce-dures for admission to teacher education programs, exploration of prospec-tive teachers' attitudes and identities concerning their own and other ethnicand cultural groups, topics and instructional strategies to include in teachereducation courses, and design of field experiences in communities andschools. One aspect of an effective multicultural teacher education pro-gram is helping prospective teachers develop a clearer conception of theirown ethnic and cultural identities. This can be important in understandingthe cultural perspective of others. Multicultural education for prospectiveand practicing teachers must help teachers understand the histories andcontributions of various cultural groups, the characteristics and learningstyles of various groups and individuals, and ways to identify and deal withprejudice, racism, and sexism in the classroom. In addition, multiculturalteacher education should help teachers learn about the specific communi-ties from which their students come. This information helps teachers gain aclearer understanding of who their students are and improve their ability tocommunicate successfully with both students and families. Effectivemulticultural teacher education helps teachers understand the relationshipbetween particular teaching methods and the preferred interaction and learn-

235 234


ing styles students may be familiar with at home and in their communities.Further, it is important for teacher education to include teaching strategiesand assessment techniques that are sensitive to students' cultural and lin-guistic characteristics and methods of instruction and assessment that canbe adapted to build upon students' cultural resources.

The elements of field experiences Ladson-Billings (1995) and Zeichner(1992) presented are essential to effective multicultural teacher education.They advocate:

...exposure [of prospective teachers] to examples of successfulteaching of ethnic- and language-minority students, opportuni-ties [to] complete community field experiences with adults andlor children of other ethnocultural groups with guided reflec-tions, and opportunities for practicum andl or student teachingexperiences in schools serving ethnic- and language-minoritystudents. p. 753

Field experiences in diverse classroom settings are crucial. However,some studies indicate that experiences of white middle class prospectiveteachers in diverse field experiences can reinforce the teachers' initial nega-

.

five preconceptions about poor students and students or color (Lddson-Bill-ings, 1995). Careful selection of field placements, good quality supervi-sion, and opportunities for debriefings and guided reflections can help pre-vent such reinforcement of prospective teachers' initial prejudices.

1:1 Multicultural teacher education strategiesMany approaches to multicultural education can be found in the lit-

erature that are appropriate for middle level teacher education even thoughthey have not been used exclusively in middle level schools. Several ap-proaches to multicultural teacher education are described in the book ed-ited by Larkin and Sleeter (1995). For example, Sleeter (1995) describedassignments and activities she has used with European American prospec-tive teachers to help them understand the significance of culture in teach-ing. Another book (Ladson-Billings, 1994) described the instruction of sev-eral teachers who have been successful teachers of African American chil-dren. An excellent approach to improving education through multiculturalprocesses is presented by Jacob (1995). She described a process to helpteachers use concepts from anthropology to examine their own practiceand to identify and solve problems where particular teaching practices mayhave inhibited the learning or performance of students.

235 236


Two programs developed at the Lawrence Hall of Science at the Uni-versity of California, Berkeley are excellent for mathematics multiculturaleducation: EQUALS is designed to help teachers, counselors, and admin-istrators encourage girls and students of color to participate in mathematicscourses and activities (Kreinberg, 1989) and Family Math helps increasemathematics participation through programs in which parents and childrenlearn mathematics together (Kreinberg, 1989; Stenmark, Thompson, &Cossey, 1986). Clewell, Anderson, and Thorpe (1992) described many pro-grams to help female and minority students succeed in mathematics andscience. In reading, the Kamehameha Early Education Program (KEEP)was designed to improve the reading achievement of native Hawaiian chil-dren (Au & Jordan, 1981; D'Amato, 1993). These are a small fraction ofthe many strategies that have been published to improve education for class-rooms with diverse cultural groups.

Li ConclusionMany middle level teacher preparation programs come from what

Zeichner and Liston (1990) termed a developmentalist tradition of teachereducation practice, stressing instruction based on teachers ' understandingof their students, the students' developmental readiness, and the contentunder study. A potential weakness of teacher education programs that fitwithin a developmentalist tradition is that too little attention may be di-rected at issues of equity and justice. In this time of increasing ethnic, ra-cial, and economic diversity in the nation as a whole, middle level tea"chereducation can ill afford to assume that the current level of attention tomulticultural issues in teacher education programs is sufficient. Althoughmany teachers and teacher educators within middle level education haveworked to create equal educational opportunities for all students, muchmore must be done. A large and quickly growing base of research and theoryfrom multicultural education can help us continue our quest to improve theeducation of young adolescents. Ej

ReferencesAmerican Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (AACTE). (1987).

Teaching teachers: Facts and figures. Washington, DC: Author.

Au, K. H., & Jordan, C. (1981). Teaching reading to Hawaiian children:Finding a culturally appropriate solution. In H. Trueba, G. P. Guthrie, & K. H. Au

(Eds.), Culture and the bilingual classroom (pp. 139-152). Rowley, MA: Newberry

House.

237 236


Banks, J. A. (1991). Teaching multicultural literacy to teachers. TeachingEducation, 4 (1), 135-144.

Banks, J. A. (1995). Multicultural education: Historical development, di-mensions, and practice. In J. A. Banks & C. A. M. Banks (Eds.), Handbook ofresearch on multicultural education (pp. 3-24). New York: Macmillan.

Beane, J. (1993). A middle school curriculum: From rhetoric to reality (2nd

ed.). Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association.Boyer, J. B., & Baptiste, H. P., Jr. (1996). The crisis in teacher education in

America: Issues of recruitment and retention of culturally different (minority) teach-

ers). In J. Sikula, T. J. Buttery, & E. Guyton (Eds.), Handbook of research onteacher education (2nd ed., pp. 779-794). New York: Macmillan.

Clewell, B. C., Anderson, B. T., & Thorpe, M. E. (1992). Breaking the bar-

riers: Helping female and minority students succeed in mathematics and science.San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

D'Amato, J. (1993). Resistance and compliance in minority classrooms. In

E. Jacob & C. Jordan (Eds.), Minority education: Anthropological perspectives(pp. 181-207). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1995). Inequality and access to knowledge. In J. A.Banks & C. A. M. Banks (Eds.), Handbook of research on multicultural education

(pp. 465-483). New York: Macmillan.

Darling-Hammond, L., & Sclan, E. M. (1996). Who teaches and why: Di-lemmas of building a profession for twenty-first century schools. In J. Sikula, T. J.

Buttery, & E. Guyton (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education (2nd ed.,

pp. 67-101). New York: Macmillan.

Garcia, E. E. (1995). Educating Mexican American students: Past treatment

and recent developments in theory, research, policy, and practice. In J. A. Banks &

C. A. M. Banks (Eds.), Handbook of research on multicultural education (pp. 372-

387). New York: Macmillan.

Gollnick, D. (1991). Multicultural education: Policies and practices in teacher

education. In C. Grant (Ed.), Research and multicultural education: From themargins to the mainstream (pp. 218-239). London: Falmer Press.

Gollnick, D. M. (1995). National and state initiatives for multicultural edu-

cation. In J. A. Banks & C. A. M. Banks (Eds.), Handbook of research onmulticultural education (pp. 44-64). New York: Macmillan.

Jacob, E. (1995). Reflective practice and anthropology in culturally diverse

classrooms. Elementary School Journal, 95 (5), 451-463.Kreinberg, N. (1989). The practice of equity. Peabody Journal of Educa-

tion, 66 (2), 127-146.

2 3 7 238


Ladson-Billings, G. (1994). The dreamkeepers: Successful teachers of Afri-can American children. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Multicultural teacher education: Research, prac-

tice, and policy. In J. A. Banks & C. A. M. Banks (Eds.), Handbook of research on

multicultural education (pp. 747-759). New York: Macmillan.

Larkin, J. M., & Sleeter, C. E. (1995). Introduction. In J. M. Larkin & C. E.Sleeter (Eds.), Developing multicultural teacher education curricula (pp. 1-16).Albany: State University of New York Press.

Lomawaima, K. T. (1995). Educating Native Americans. In J. A. Banks & C.

A. M. Banks (Eds.), Handbook of research on multicultural education (pp. 331-347). New York: Macmillan.

McDaniel, J. E., Stowell, L. P., Rios, F. A., & Christopher, P. A. (1994). Do

as we do and as we say: Modeling curriculum integration in teacher education.Middle School Journal, 26 (2), 14-20.

National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE). (1992).

Standards, procedures, and policies for the accreditation of professional educa-tion units. Washington, DC: Author.

Rios, F. A. (1993). Thinking in urban, multicultural classrooms: Four teach-

ers' perspectives. Urban Education, 28 (3), 245-266.

Sleeter, C. E. (1995). White preservice students and multicultural education

coursework. In J. M. Larkin & C. E. Sleeter (Eds.), Developing multicultural teacher

education curricula (pp. 17-29). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Snipp, C. M. (1995). American Indian studies. In J. A. Banks & C. A. M.Banks (Eds.), Handbook of research on multicultural education (pp. 245-258).New York: Macmillan.

Stenmark, J. K., Thompson, V., & Cossey, R. (1986). Family math. Berkeley,

CA: Lawrence Hall of Science, University of California.

Stowell, L. P., McDaniel, J. E., & Rios, F. A. (1995). Fostering change fordemocratic middle schools through teacher education. Middle School Journal, 26(5), 3-10.

Williamson, R. D. (1996). Middle level education. In J. Sikula, T. J. Buttery,

& E. Guyton (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education (2nd ed., pp. 378-391). New York: Macmillan.

Zeichner, K. (1992). Educating teachers for cultural diversity (Special Re-port). East Lansing, MI: National Center for Research on Teacher Learning.

Zeichner, K., & Liston, D. (1990). Traditions of reform in U.S. teacher edu-

cation. Journal of Teacher Education, 41 (2), 3-20.

239 238

RRRI(RRRRRRRR;R: tiRABAReRRyji tr213 awRRV% 1.1,Z,F R.1.3.RN

Qt:RRARR

kRRRKKRRNARRRRRRRRRRR ItR: RIMRRRRR

Mac Iver

Plank

Schine

Brough

Social Context

Douglas J. Mac IverThe Johns Hopkins UniversityBaltimore, Maryland

Stephen B. PlankThe Johns Hopkins UniversityBaltimore, Maryland

Joan SchineCity University of New YorkNew York, New York

Judith A. BroughGettysburg CollegeGettysburg, Pennsylvania

239

Douglas J. Mac Iver and Stephen B. Plank

Improving Urban Schools: Developing theTalents of Students Placed at Risk

Many of America's urban middle school students have been placedat risk of falling far short of their academic potential. Amongthe most often-cited factors that place youth in danger of school

failure are poverty, unstable or abusive home situations, peers and rolemodels who provide anti-academic or antisocial pathways, feelings of dis-trust or alienation toward school personnel, limited English skills, and mis-matches between students' developmental needs and the services, curricu-lum, and instruction provided by schools. The presence of even one seriousrisk factor jeopardizes a child's likelihood of persisting and succeeding inschool, and as risk factors become multiple so do the threats to academicsuccess.

Whether one considers students placed at risk or those enjoying moreadvantaged and supportive environments, all middle school students ex-hibit some commbn traits and needs during the tumultuous developmentalstage of early adolescence. Young adolescents have definite physical, so-cial, cognitive, and emotional needs as they begin their initiation into adult-hood (Irvin, 1992). Bodies are changing rapidly and dramatically, oftenthreatening individuals' feelings of self-esteem (Wavering, 1995). The de-sire for peer interaction and peer acceptance is great as individuals are form-ing identifies and ideas about appropriate attitudes and behaviors (Spear,1992). The transition from purely concrete thinking to abstract and reflec-tive reasoning is taking place but will be strong and smooth only withnurturance and guidance (Irvin, 1992; Spear, 1992). Feelings of confidence,optimism, and motivation can emerge in certain settings, but uncertainty,pessimism, and resignation can emerge in other circumstances (Davies,1995; Thomason and Thompson, 1992).

243

240


Although these physical, social, cognitive, and emotional traits andneeds characterize all young adolescents, some are especially salient forstudents placed at risk, and schools can play especially important roles inhelping at-risk students navigate the turbulent waters of early adolescence.The scarcity of (1) resources, (2) positive role models, (3) high-qualitylearning opportunities, and (4) guidance and emotional support that oftencharacterizes the lives of at-risk students increases the danger that theseyoung people will have great troubles as they encounter the challenges andself-doubt of the adolescent years. If left unaided, their troubles can be-come so great that these individuals never develop (1) proficiency in read-ing, writing, mathematics, and science, (2) confidence to explore and totake intellectual or social risks, (3) motivation to work hard for success, (4)feelings of worth and efficacy, and (5) aspirations and expectations for long-term educational, occupational, and personal accomplishment. By offeringthe proper educational and guidance opportunities and communally orga-nized learning environments, middle schools can do much to prevent thistragic sequence. Schools cannot remove all of the obstacles and uncer-tainty of adolescence. They cannot ameliorate all of the societal and per-sonal factors that place so many children at risk. But they can provide ap-propriate learning opportunities and school organization, as well as sys-tematic and pervasive guidance, nurturance, and support to help studentsthrough these challenges and uncertainties.

As researchers and practitioners have come to understand the uniquetraits and needs of middle school students more fully, they have also at-tempted to customize school organization, curriculum, and pedagogy tosuit students' traits and needs. In the remainder of this chapter, we describesome of these aspects of organization, curriculum, and pedagogy, explain-ing the ways in which they are responsive to the needs of urban middleschool students. We then describe our own efforts in incorporating theseaspects into a model which we call the Talent Development Middle School.Finally, we highlight some of the early findings of the Talent DevelopmentMiddle School's effects on student motivation and achievement.

Promising Practices for Urban Middle Schools: ZiSchool Organization, Curriculum, and Pedagogy

The 1990s have been filled with promising efforts aimed at nurturing andeducating middle school students that are of particular relevance to urbanschools serving large numbers of students placed at risk. A first set of ef-

2 4 1244

IMPROVING URBAN SCHOOLS

forts includes the development and use of cooperative learning methodsthat embed peer tutoring into the daily routine of classroom life and thatcreate positive peer pressure and peer support for achievement. A secondset includes detracking and an awareness of the course sequences and gate-ways that historically have been somewhat covert but highly influential insorting students and determining future opportunities. A third set includessemi-departmentalization and interdisciplinary teams of teachers. Whilethe world of educational theory and practice is filled with fads, it seemslikely that these three sets of efforts will display some real effectivenessand staying power because they are firmly rooted in an increasingly nu-anced understanding of the psychology and sociology of urban education.

0 Cooperative learningCooperative learning refers to a variety of teaching methods in which

students work in small groups to help each other master subject mattercontent and skills. Effective cooperative learning methods incorporate groupgoals and individual accountability (Cohen, 1994; Slavin, 1995). In con-trast to traditional pedagogy in which only the teacher supervises and in-structs, cooperative learning involves a shifting of authority from the teacherto the students, who become largely responsible for their teammates' effortand understanding during team study periods. The methods are responsiveto the needs of middle school students, as they allow for peer interactionand offer opportunities for self-direction and autonomy. These methodsshift the focus of the inevitable peer pressures and interpersonal compari-sons of adolescence in positive directions which support effort and aca-demic achievement.

Cooperative learning methods that incorporate group goals and indi-vidual accountability consistently increase student achievement and self-esteem, and they improve intergroup relations, acceptance of traditionallylow status students, and peer support for achievement (Mac Iver & Reuman,1993; Slavin, 1995). As researchers have begun to examine the conditionsunder which cooperative learning works best, it has been shown that theeffectiveness of cooperative learning is related to the time and effort dedi-cated to preparing students for the cooperative experience and for theirroles as peer tutors to the other members of their teams. Although middleschool students usually respond favorably to opportunities to interact withpeers during learning activities, they often lack social skills and strategiesfor resolving conflicts, staying on task, and involving all teammates (Will-iams, Harris, & Hayakawa, 1995). To realize the greatest possible benefitsof cooperative learning, it is important to work explicitly with students in

245 242

WHAT CupRosn- RESEARCH SAYS

developing skills for basic communication, conflict resolution, peer tutor-ing, and task completion (Fuchs, Fuchs, Bentz, Phillips, & Hamlett, 1994;Me loth & Deering, 1994; Webb & Farivar, 1994).

Detracking and an awareness of course sequencesand gateways

Tracking refers to the practice of assigning students to instructionalgroups or course sequences on the basis of prior achievement or perceivedability. Several decades of research have documented the prevalence oftracking in American middle and high schools, and have investigated boththe determinants of track placements and the effects of tracking. As Hallinan-(1994a) summarized, a combination of survey research and case studiessupport the following conclusions about tracking:

1. In practice, track placements are usually based not only on academicconsiderations (such as grades, test scores, teachers' and counselors'recommendations, and course prerequisites) but also on nonacademicconsiderations (such as course conflicts, extracurricular schedules,and teacher and curricular resources). As a result, track levels are rarelyhomogeneous with respect to achievement and the distribution ofachievement in any one track overlaps considerably with the distribu-tion in adjacent tracks.

2. Schools vary in the set of factors which guide track placements. Thus,track assignments depend, in part, on the schools that students attend.

3. A greater proportion of minority and low-income students are assignedto the lower tracks, as compared to white and higher-income students.When academic achievement is controlled, these tendencies decrease,but do not disappear.

4. Quality and quantity of instruction increases with the level of the track,resulting in gross inequalities in students' access to knowledge, in-structional resources, and well-qualified teaching.

5. Students in higher tracks learn more and at a faster pace than do thosein lower tracks.

6. Tracking provides no learning advantages over heterogeneous group-ing for students in the middle of the achievement range.The cumulative body of research is fairly unified in stating that track-

ing as it usually has been implemented is inequitable, and harmful at leastto students placed in the lowest tracks. Related research has shown thatopportunities for taking some key courses during middle school such aseighth grade algebra - have strong consequences for enrollment opportuni-ties and trajectories in high school and beyond (Catsambis, 1994; Dauber,

246

9 Q


Alexander, & Entwisle, 1996; Stevenson, Schiller, & Schneider, 1994). Ingeneral, the past decade has brought a greater awareness among research-ers and educators about how certain middle school courses and course se-quences function as gateways for students' future opportunities.

Opinions differ regarding whether an appropriate solution is to alterand fine-tune the way tracking is practiced (Gamoran, 1993; Gamoran,Nystrand, Berends, and Le Pore, 1995; Hallinan, 1994a, 1994b) or to aban-don the practice completely by detracking schools, thereby organizing stu-dents into classrooms that are heterogeneous with regard to prior achieve-ment and other characteristics which have generally been associated withtracking (Oakes, 1994a, 1994b). A moral argument can be made fordetracking if one views separate as inherently unequal and if one believesthat all students deserve exposure to the same high quality curriculum, in-struction, and opportunities to learn.

Semi-departmentalization and interdisciplinary teams ofteachers

Middle school research and reform efforts have generated increasingexcitement about the potential benefits of semi-departmentalization andinterdisciplinary teaming. Efforts in these directions aim to change middleschool organizational structures fundamentally, just as detracking effortsdo. Semi-departmentalization is a faculty organization in which most teach-ers reduce their student load by 60% or 50% by teaching two or three sub-ject areas during the course of a school day rather than specializing in justone "department." Interdisciplinary teaming is the assignment of commonstudents and planning time to two or more teachers who teach differentsubjects so that they can coordinate content, schedules, special events, andparent conferences.

Semi-departmentalization. By seventh grade, most students in theU.S. are taught each of their academic subjects by a different (usually sec-ondary-certified) specialist in that subject (Epstein & Mac Iver, 1990). Asa result, most teachers of seventh graders instruct five different sections ofstudents every day. Unfortunately, when students have a different teacherfor each of their academic subjects and when teachers are responsible forfive different sections of students, teacher-student relations suffer com-pared to the closer and more positive relations found in schools with semi-departmentalized staffing (McPartland, 1987, 1990, 1992). The reason forthis negative impact of departmentalization is clear. Compared to teacherswho teach only two or three different sections of students, teachers who

247

244

WHAT CURREITT RESEARCH SAYS

teach five different sections of students cannot easily maintain close per-sonal contacts with, and detailed knowledge of, each student. The heavyload of students in departmentalized schools makes it less likely that teach-ers:

come to know their students well, to feel that they aretrustworthy, and to grant them autonomy ... [In departmental-ized settings] , teachers may feel that it is difficult to affect theachievement of a large number of students, especially sincethey see them for a relatively small proportion of the schoolday, making it difficult to sustain feelings of efficacy.

Eccles & Midgley, 1988, p.13; see also Eccles, Midgley,

Wigfield, Buchanan, Reuman, Flanagan, & Mac Iver, 1993

Departmentalization and its concomitants may be partly responsiblefor the consistent finding that middle level teachers' attitudes and beliefsare typically more negative than those held by upper elementary level teach-ers (Eccles & Midgley, 1989; Eccles, Midgley, & Adler, 1984). For ex-ample, Midgley, Feldlaufer, and Eccles (1989) compared the beliefs of theteachers that students had for mathematics the year before and the yearafter the transition to junior high school. The junior high teachers ratedstudents as less trustworthy than did the elementary teachers. Similarly, thejunior high teachers believed that students needed to be controlled and dis-ciplined more strictly than did the elementary teachers. Finally, the juniorhigh teachers felt significantly less efficacious than did the elementary schoolteachers. For example, they were less likely to endorse items such as " I amcertain I am making a difference in the lives of my students" (Midgley,Feldlaufer, & Eccles, 1989).

The classroom climate in departmentalized schools is affected by theincreased negativity of teachers' beliefs and attitudes. When students entera departmentalized middle level school, both students and classroom ob-servers perceive the teachers to be less supportive, friendly, and fair thanthe elementary school teachers that the students had just a year earlier(Feldlaufer, Midgley, & Eccles, 1988).

On the other hand, because departmentalized staffing permits teach-ers to concentrate their energies on one subject, they are better able to fo-cus on creating outstanding learning experiences and keeping up with thelatest approaches in that subject area. This may result in higher qualityinstruction in departmentalized schools. In turn, the increases in instruc-tional quality that accompany departmentalization may lead to increases instudent achievement unless the positive impact of departmentalization on

2 45248


instructional quality is outweighed by the negative effects of departmental-ization on teacher-student relations and on other factors that influence stu-dent motivation and achievement.

The positive effects of departmentalization on student achievementhave been more persuasively documented (using the National Assessmentof Educational Progress and the national NELS:88 survey) for seventh-and eighth-graders and for middle-class and upper-class students than forsixth-graders and economically-disadvantaged students (McPartland, 1987,1990, 1992). In fact, data on sixth-graders from the Pennsylvania Educa-tional Quality Assessment (EQA) and from eighth-graders in the lowestSES quartile of NELS:88 demonstrates that a departmentalized structure isnot always associated with higher student achievement (Becker, 1987;McPartland, 1987, 1992). For example, although McPartland found thatsixth-graders' perceptions of the quality of instruction in science and socialstudies were higher when departmentalization was used, there was a nega-tive relation between the degree of departmentalization and the students'average test scores in science and social studies (McPartland, 1987).Becker's (1987) analyses of the EQA data suggested that the achievementof most sixth-grade students in most subjects is greater when they havefewer teachers (less departmentalization). He found that the detrimentaleffects of departmentalization on achievement are strongest for studentsfrom low and low-middle social backgrounds. Similarly, McPartland (1992)found no evidence of a significant positive impact of departmentalizationon the achievement of eighth-graders from the lowest SES quartile in theNELS:88 sample.

Interdisciplinary teams of teachers. Proponents of the middle schoolphilosophy have long advocated organizing teachers into interdisciplinaryteams. Alexander and George (1981) defined an interdisciplinary team or-ganization as "a way of organizing the faculty so that a group of teachersshare (1) the responsibility for planning, teaching, and evaluating curricu-lum and instruction in more than one academic area; (2) the same group ofstudents; (3) the same schedule; and (4) the same area of the building" (p.115). An interdisciplinary team organization is hypothesized to increasethe student orientation of teachers: "Teachers talk about what they have incommon, and when the teachers share the same students rather than thesame academic discipline, the students are at the center of discussion andprogram planning" (p. 133). Because they teach the same group of stu-dents, team members can share student information and develop commonstrategies for meeting individual student needs or for dealing with prob-

249

4 6


lems. Furthermore, they can prepare for and conduct parent conferences asa team.

Interdisciplinary teaming has been shown to increase students' feel-ings of attachment to teachers, peers, and the school and to partially ame-liorate the negative effects of departmentalization and heavy student loadson student-teacher relations (Arhar, 1992; Arhar & Kromrey, 1995,McPartland, 1992). Finally, data from a national sample of middle levelschools indicate that when a school implements interdisciplinary teaming,teachers gain social support and understanding from their team membersand students' problems are more quickly identified and resolved (Mac Iver& Epstein, 1991) .

Ll The Talent Development Middle School Li

We, the authors of this chapter, are involved in a school improvement effortand research project which incorporates cooperative learning, detracking,interdisciplinary teaming, and semi-departmentalization into middle schooleducation. The project is called the Talent Development Middle School.The first site is being operated and evaluated at Central East Middle Schoolin Philadelphia. All efforts in the Talent Development Middle School areguided by a belief that all students can learn challenging academic materialif the right types of support are given (Madhere & Mac Iver, 1996).

Nine fundamental components define Talent Development MiddleSchools. 1) A demanding standards-based core curriculum aimed at activestudent learning is provided for all students in heterogeneously-groupedclasses. 2) Opportunities for extra help and enrichment are expanded throughthe use of cooperative learning and "extra dose" elective classes in math-ematics and reading. 3) A communal organization of the school is estab-lished that includes semi-departmentalization, two- or three-person inter-disciplinary teams, and small learning communities that endure for two orthree years. 4) Students are assisted every year in setting goals, planningfor the future, and systematically exploring educational and career optionsthrough a Career Exploration and Educational Decision-Making course thatmeets weekly. 5) An intensive transition program (involving eighth grad-ers as "older partners") ensures a good start for students who are new to theschool. 6) Growth-oriented evaluation practices are used that recognizeindividual improvement and progress towards high standards in additionto giving students realistic, unambiguous feedback concerning how theirperformance compares to national norms and performance standards. 7)

247 250


Students are assisted with personal problems and concerns such as sub-stance abuse, teenage parenthood, home difficulties, or poor attendancehabits by integrating professional services at the school and through coor-dinated efforts by each student's small learning community. 8) School-fam-ily-community partnerships are established. 9) Instruction is attentive tocultural patterns and norms, promotes cultural literacy, and helps studentsconnect to and interpret cultural traditions.

Cooperative learning is central to the way academic subjects and ca-reer exploration are taught in Talent Development schools. And within thecooperative learning activities, there is a focus on higher order competen-cies, attention to literature and lessons from a wide range of cultures, anattempt to generate strong and achievement-oriented norms and bonds, andevaluation that rewards progress as well as excellence. A detracked de-manding curriculum is made to work well for all students by the expandedopportunities for extra help and enrichment. Finally, the use of interdisci-plinary teams, semi-departmentalization, and multi-year small learningcommunities creates a communal organization within the school which sup-ports strong teacher-student bonds and addresses adolescents' needs foraffiliation.

Early Findings From (and the Ongoing Evaluation of)the Talent Development Middle School Initiative

The effects of implementing the nine Talent Development Middle Schoolcomponents are being carefully evaluated at Central East Middle Schoolby comparing student outcomes there to those obtained in a closely matchedcontrol school. Similar evaluations will be conducted at other schools whenthey fully implement the Talent Development Middle School model . Earlyimplementation and outcome data have already been collected to examinethe beginning effects of the Talent Development Reading\English\LanguageArts (RELA) program at Central East. In this program, there is a totaldetracking of instruction, and Student Team Reading (STR) is used in RELAto focus the curriculum and instruction on excellent novels, many of whichare award winners (e.g., Newberry, American Book Award, Coretta ScottKing, American Library Association). Student Team Reading changes boththe instructional processes and the curriculum in RELA to create a motiva-tional climate that is conducive to high achievement. Similarly, StudentTeam Writing is used in the Talent Development Program to get students towrite often and to work cooperatively when planning, revising, and editing

251

2 41


their writing as they learn to give feedback to one another and use feedbackthat has been given. Large-scale middle school studies (Stevens & Durkin,1992) found that Student Team Reading and Student Team Writing pro-grams significantly improved the achievement of urban middle school stu-dents on standardized tests of reading comprehension, reading vocabulary,and language expression.

Our initial implementation data from February, 1996 indicated thatthe teachers at Central East Middle School are well on their way to a strongimplementation of Student Team Reading. Further, our February 1996 as-sessment of motivational outcomes indicates that STR implementation hasproduced RELA classrooms where peer support for achievement is high,where student-teacher relations are positive, where students give their bestand work hard to master the content and meet adults' standards, and wherestudents are confident both in their ability to learn and in the future utilityof what they are learning (Mac Iver & Plank, 1996). We have also foundstrong positive effects of STR at Central East on student achievement (MacIver, Plank, & Balfanz, 1997), and evaluations of the extra help (Mac Iver,Balfanz, & Plank, 1997); and career exploration (Mac Iver & Plank, 1997)components of the Talent Development model have also yielded encourag-ing initial findings. El

ReferencesAlexander, W., & George, P. (1981). The exemplary middle school. New

York, Wiley.

Arhar, J.M. (1992). Interdisciplinary teaming and the social bonding of middle

level students. In J.L. Irvin (Ed.), Transforming Middle Level Education: Perspec-

tives and Possibilities (pp. 139-161). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Arhar, J.M., & Kromrey, J.D. (1995). Interdisciplinary teaming and the de-

mographics of membership: A comparison of student belonging in high SES andlow SES middle level schools. Research in Middle Level Education 18 (2), 71-88.

Becker, H. (1987). Addressing the needs of different groups of young adoles-

cents: Effects of varying school and classroom organizational practices on stu-dents from different social backgrounds and abilities. (CREMS Report No. 16).Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University, Center for Research on Elementaryand Middle Schools. (Available from Publications Dept., Attn: Diane Diggs,CREMS, Johns Hopkins University, 3505 N. Charles Street, Baltimore, MD 21218).

Catsambis, S. (1994). The path to math: Gender and racial-ethnic differ-ences in mathematics participation from middle school to high school, Sociologyof Education 67 (3), 199-215.

2 4 9 252


Cohen, E.G. (1994). Designing groupwork: Strategies for the heterogeneous

classroom (Second Edition). New York: Teachers College Press.

Dauber, S.L., Alexander, K.L., & Entwisle, D.R. (1996). Tracking and tran-sitions through the middle grades: Channeling educational trajectories. Sociologyof Education, 69 (4), 290-307.

Davies, M.A. (1995). Age-appropriate teaching strategies. In M.J. Wavering

(Ed.), Educating young adolescents: Life in the middle (pp. 307-352). New York,Garland Publishing.

Eccles, J. S., & Midgley, C. (1988). Understanding motivation: A develop-

mental approach to person-environment fit. Unpublished maunuscript. (Available

from Jacquelynne Eccles, 5271 Institute for Social Research, PO Box 1248, AnnArbor, MI 48106-1248.)

Eccles, J. S., & Midgley, C. (1989). Stage/environment fit: Developmen-

tally appropriate classrooms for young adolescents. In R. E. Ames & C. Ames(Eds.), Research on motivation in education (Vol. 3, pp. 139-186). San Diego, CA:Academic Press.

Eccles, J. S., Midgley, C., & Adler, T. (1984). Grade-related changes in theschool environment: Effects on achievement motivation. In J. G. Nicholls (Ed.),

The development of achievement motivation (pp. 283-331). Greenwich, CT: JAIPress.

Eccles, J. S., Midgley, C., Wigfield, A., Buchanan, C.M., Reuman, D.,Flanagan, C., & Mac Iver, D. (1993). Development during adolescence: The im-

pact of stage-environment fit on young adolescents' experiences in schools and infamilies. American Psychologist, 48 (2), 90-101.


Feldlaufer, H., Midgley, C., & Eccles, J. S. (1988). Student, teacher, andobserver perceptions of the classroom environment before and after the transitionto junior high school. Journal of Early Adolescence, 8 (2), 133-156.

Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., Bentz, J., Phillips, N.B., & Hamlett, C.L. (1994).The nature of student interactions during peer tutoring with and without prior train-

ing and experience, American Educational Research Journal, 31 (1), 75-103.

Gamoran, A. (1993). Alternative uses of ability grouping in secondary schools:

Can we bring high-quality instruction to low-ability classes? American Journal ofEducation, 102 (1), 1-22.

Gamoran, A., Nystrand, M., Berends, M., & LePore, P.C. (1995). An organi-

zational analysis of the effects of ability grouping. American Educational Research

Journal, 32 (4), 687-715.

253 2:50


Hallinan, M.T. (1994a). Tracking: From theory to practice. Sociology ofEducation, 67 (2), 79-84.

Hallinan, M.T. (1994b). Further thoughts on tracking, Sociology of Educa-

tion, 67 (2), 89-91.Irvin, J.L. (1992). Developmentally appropriate instruction: The heart of the

middle school. In J.L. Irvin (Ed.), Transforming middle level education: Perspec-

tives and possibilities (pp. 295-313). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Mac Iver, D.J., Balfanz, R., & Plank, S.B. (1997). An 'elective replacement'

approach to providing extra help and enrichment in mathematics in the TalentDevelopment Middle School: Effects of the Computer- and Team-Assisted Math-

ematics Acceleration Program. Center for Research on the Education of Students

Placed At Risk. (Available in December, 1997, from Publications Dept., Attn: Diane

Diggs, CRESPAR, Johns Hopkins University, 3505 N. Charles Street, Baltimore,

MD 21218)Mac Iver, D.J., & Epstein, IL. (1991). Responsive practices in the middle

grades: Teacher teams, advisory groups, remedial instruction, and school transi-

tion programs. American Journal of Education, 99 (4), 587-622.Mac Iver, D.J., & Plank, S.B. (1996). The talent development middle school:

Implementation and effects of student team reading. Report No. 4. Center for Re-

search on the Education of Students Placed At Risk. (Available from Publications

Dept., Attn: Dian Diggs, CRESPAR, Johns Hopkins University, 3505 N. Charles

Street, Baltimore, MD 21218)

Mac Iver, D.J., & Plank, S.B. (1997, March). From "at risk" to "on target" :

Effects of a career exploration and educational decision-making course on urbanmiddle school students. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the AmericanEducational Research Association.

Mac Iver, D.J., Plank, S.B., & Balfanz, R. (1997). Working together to be-

come proficient readers: Early impact of the Talent Development Middle School' s

Student Team Literature Program. (Report 15). Baltimore, MD and Washington,DC: Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed at Risk.

Mac Iver, D.J., & Reuman, D.A. (1993). Giving their best: Grading andrecognition practices that motivate students to work hard, American Educator, 17

(4), 24-31.

Madhere, S., & Mac Iver, D.J. (1996). The talent development middle school:

Essential components. Report No. 3., Center for Research on the Education ofStudents Placed At Risk. (Available from Publications Dept., Attn: Diane Diggs,

CRESPAR, Johns Hopkins University, 3505 N. Charles Street, Baltimore, MD21218).

2 5 254


McPartland, J.M. (1987). Balancing high quality subject-matter instruction

with positive teacher-student relations in the middle grades: Effects of departmen-

talization, tracking, and block scheduling on learning environments. (CREMSReport No. 25). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University, Center for Research

on Elementary and Middle Schools. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.ED 291 704.)

McPartland, J.M. (1990). Staffing decisions in the middle grades. Phi DeltaKappan, 71 (6), 438-444.

McPartland, J.M. (1992, February). Staffing patterns and the social organi-zation of schools for young adolescents. Paper presented at the fourth biennialmeeting of the Society for Research on Adolescence, Washington, DC.

Meloth, M.S., & Deering, P.D. (1994). Task talk and task awareness underdifferent cooperative learning conditions, American Educational Research Journal 31, (1), 138-165.

Midgley, C., Feldlaufer, H., & Eccles, J. S. (1989). Change in teacher effi-cacy and student self- and task-related beliefs during the transition to junior high

school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81 (2), 247-258.

Oakes, J. (1994a). More than misapplied technology: A normative and po-litical response to Hallinan on tracking, Sociology of Education, 67 (2), 84-89.

Oakes, J. (1994b). One more thought. Sociology of Education, 67 (2), 91.Slavin, R.E. (1995). Cooperative learning: Theory, research, and practice

(Second Edition). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Spear, R.C. (1992). Appropriate grouping practices for middle level students,

In J.L. Irvin (Ed.), Transforming middle level education: Perspectives and possi-

bilities (pp.244-274). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Stevens, R. J. & Durkin, S. (1992). Using student team reading and student

team writing in middle schools. (CDS Report No. 36). Baltimore, MD: JohnsHopkins University, Center for Research on Effective Schooling for Disadvan-taged Students. (Available from Publications Dept., Attn: Diane Diggs, CDS, Johns

Hopkins University, 3505 N. Charles Street, Baltimore, MD 21218)

Stevenson, D.L., Schiller, K.S., &Schneider, B. (1994). Sequences of oppor-

tunities for learning. Sociology of Education, 67 (3), 184-198.

Thomason, J., &Thompson, M. (1992). Motivation: Moving, learning, mas-tering, and sharing. In J.L. Irvin (Ed.), Transforming middle level education: Per-

spectives and possibilities (pp.275-294) Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Wavering, M.J. (1995). Cognitive development of young adolescents. In M.J.

Wavering (Ed.), Educating young adolescents: Life in the middle (pp. 111-130).New York, Garland Publishing.

255 252

Webb, N.M. & Farivar, S. (1994). Promoting helping behavior in coopera-

tive small groups in middle school mathematics. American Educational Research

Journal, 31 (2), 369-395.Williams, D.R., Harris, J., & Hayakawa, C. (1995). Cooperative learning

and conflict resolution: Perspectives of urban middle school adolescents. Research

in Middle Level Education, 18 (2), 23-47.

Joan Schine

Service Learning and Young Adolescents:A Good Fit

From the perspective of the middle school practitioner concerned withservice learning, perhaps the most significant research of the lasttwenty years deals, not with service learning or experiential educa-

tion, but with young adolescent development. As more has been learnedabout the developmental characteristics of early adolescence, it has be-come evident that experiential learning, and in particular service learning,can respond to many of the developmental needs of this stage.

In 1982, when the Early Adolescent Helper Program' was introducedin three New York City junior high and middle schools, service learning atthe high school level was still far from common, and service learning ini-tiatives in the middle grades were scarcer still. Early adolescence had onlyrecently been "discovered" as a discrete developmental stage; Joan Lipsitz's(1977) influential book, Growing Up Forgotten, was published five yearsearlier, and the middle school movement had begun to grow. Researchers,practitioners, and policy makers were taking a fresh look at adolescence,and had begun to recognize that adolescence cannot be viewed as a singledevelopmental stage, and that differentiating between early, middle, andlate adolescence would increase our capacity to respond to the needs of thiscritical period. "Considerable insight is gained when we recognize thatgrowth unfolds in a mildly predictable manner, and as a consequence, earlyadolescents are considerably different in temperament and ability from lateadolescents" (Mitchell, 1986, p.91).

A service learning program designed for the middle grades, the Helper Program

is now the action arm of the National Helpers Network, based in New York City.

257254


In 1983, the Center for Early Adolescence (CEA) compiled an inven-tory of eleven characteristics of the young adolescent, pairing each traitwith a related developmental need. More recently, the Carnegie Council onAdolescent Development (1989), in its influential report, Turning Points:Preparing American Youth for the 21st Century, called attention to "thevolatile mismatch between the organization and curriculum of middle gradeschools and the intellectual and emotional needs of young adolescents" (p.8). A review of several of the items in the CEA's (1983) list argued for the"fit" between service learning and the middle school program:

Young adolescents...

... undergo rapid physical,social, emotional, and intellec-tual changes.... can be painfully self-consciousand critical. They are definingthemselves, and they vary widelyin maturity and ability.... identify with the peer group;they want to belong, and they aredeveloping deepening friend-ships.... identify more maturely withtheir race, gender, and potentialfor employment.... are idealistic about social andreligious issues.

Therefore they need...

... to explore who they are andwhat they can become.

... many opportunities to achieveand have their competence recog-nized by others.

... opportunities to form positiverelationships and experiences withpeers.

... relationships with diverse adultrole models.

... to participate meaningfully intheir communities.

p. 2

While some middle school educators initially had doubts about thesuitability of service learning for their students, others recognized in ser-vice learning a way to provide new opportunities for growth. This lattergroup found affirmation in the research of the Center for Early Adoles-cence and of the pioneers of the middle school movement, who were ad-vocating a school structure that would take into account the curiosity, therestlessness, and the volatility of this time of transition.

Although existing research on adolescent development suggested thatservice learning is indeed an appropriate undeitaking for the middle schoolstudents, more information was needed. Parents, teachers, community mem-

2 5 258

SERVICE LEARNING AND YOUNG ADOLESCENTS

bers, decision makers at every level, ask about the short- and long-termeffects of these programs, about the impact on the community, and abouttaking students away from the traditional classroom. Researchers, educa-tors, and program planners sought answers to these questions and means todiscover whether there were significant differences in outcome dependingupon the kind of service in which youngsters engaged, and on whether theservice learning was elective or required. This chapter will examine thelimited research to date on service learning reporting first the incidenceand nature of service learning programs and then information on the out-comes of service learning.

ID Incidence and nature of service learning programsIn a national survey (Hodgkinson & Weitzman, 1992), the authors

found that 61% of teenagers (young people between the ages of 12 and 17)volunteered an average of 3.2 hours per week in 1991. Of these, however,only 25% reported that their service was school-related. What has beenlacking until relatively recently is the kind of systematic research that isessential for program improvement research that is often a critical factorin determining whether innovations are incorporated into our schools orremain disposable "add-ons." Scant research and evaluation exist specifi-cally focused on service learning in the middle grades. As Switzer, Simmons,Dew, Regalski, and Nang (1995) pointed out, "there is an extensive litera-ture on prosocial behavior in general, and on altruism specifically. How-ever, much of the research has been conducted on adults or college stu-dents; fewer studies have involved young adolescents" (p. 429). Needed,too, are studies that compare the impact of service learning (here definedas hands-on service, combined with provision for structured preparationand ongoing reflection) with community service experiences that do notinclude the reflective component.

Much of what we know or believe at the present time about servicelearning in the middle grades is based on anecdotal data or self-reportingby participants and adult leaders. For some time there has been an abun-dance of anecdotal information confirming the value.of service learning, aswell as a body of teacher and parent observations that suggest positivechanges resulting from participation in service. Pre- and post-tests havebeen administered in numerous programs, and they provide some evidencethat attitudinal change occurs, stereotyping is reduced, and self-efficacy isenhanced (Schine & Campbell, 1987; Search Institute, 1991; Shumer &Belbas, 1996).

259 256


Li Outcomes of service learningConcern for the growing number of "at-risk" youth, and what many

perceive as a fraying social fabric, combined with renewed interest in "ayouth development approach," has led to exploration of the power of ser-vice learning as a protective factor. Some indication that participation inservice may indeed contribute to a reduction of risk factors can be found inSearch Institute's study of 46,000 young people titled The Troubled Jour-ney, supported by the Lutheran Brotherhood through its RespecTeen pro-gram. Researchers found that youth who serve others are less likely to beinvolved in at-risk behaviors. Out of twenty at-risk indicators, boys whoserve one or more hours per week average 2.9 indicators, compared to 3.4indicators for boys who spend no time serving. Girls who serve average2.2 indicators, compared to 2.9 indicators for non-servers. It is not clear,however, whether those who engaged in service were a self-selected popu-lation.

Several studies currently under way are intended to explore the short-and long-term effects of service learning.2 Some preliminary findings indi-cate that service learning does indeed produce positive outcomes. Criteriafor success vary across programs, and it is safe to say that there is a needfor more data and for rigorous research.

Pressure is growing for information about the relationship of aca-demic achievement to participation in service learning. In a review of re-search articles and books Robert Shumer and Brad Belbas (1996) of theNational Service-Learning Clearinghouse concluded that "we know muchmore than people usually describe when they talk about serviceprograms...We know service learning has a rich history of evaluation andresearch. Tied to other areas, such as vocational education or community-based learning, we know it contributes significantly to development of self-esteem, to career awareness, and to academic connections between class-room and community" (p. 221). But, they acknowledged that "Althoughwe know a lot about service learning, there is still much more to learnabout service and its effect on learning" (p. 221).

Spurred in part by the proliferatiori of service learning initiatives fol-lowing the passage of the National and Community Service Trust Act of1993, and the need to evaluate Learn and Serve America programs, fundedby the Corporation for National Service, a number of studies are now un-der way. Richard Kraft (1996) cautioned:

For a fairly comprehensive listing of current research and evaluation in service

learning, see Search Institute: Proceedings from the Service Learning Summit,September 9-10, 1995. Search Institute, Minneapolis, MN.

2 260

SERVICE LEARNING AND YOUNG ADOLESCENTS

One of the major difficulties in evaluating or researching ser-vice-learning programs is the lack of agreement on what is meantby the term service learning and exactly what it is meant to ac-complish. Whereas some programs emphasize social growth,character development, or civic responsibility, others attemptto study psychological development and effects of programs onself-concept. Moral judgment studies have sought to evaluatethe effects of service on moral and ego development, and otherstudies have attempted to measure the effects of service on thebroader community. Perhaps the most difficult arena has beenin the area of intellectual, cognitive, and academic effects. Ithas been difficult to design tight experiments to isolate the ef-fects of service on specific academic achievements.

pp. 142-143

The Early Adolescent Helper Program, founded in 1982, and baseduntil 1994 at the City University of New York's Graduate Center, was thesubject of a study by Galen Switzer and colleagues at the University ofPittsburgh in the 1992-93 school year. The study was limited to a seventhgrade class in a single urban junior high school, but included students whowere required to serve as tutors for younger children or students with lim-ited English proficiency or as helpers in a senior center, as well as a largernumber who selected their own service projects from a list provided by theschool.

It was hypothesized that Helper Program participants (n=85 )relative to nonparticipants (n=86), and especially boys, wouldshow improvement in 4 domains: self-image, commitment toschool and community, problem behavior, and commitment toaltruism. The results were gender specific: Participating boysshowed positive changes in self-esteem, depressive affect, in-volvement, and problem behavior relative to other groups. Thefindings indicate that, with program modifications to augmentpotential benefits to girls, Helper programs might become animportant mechanism in producing positive life changes for ado-lescents. Switzer, et al., 1995, p.429

Middle school educators who work with service learning programs, andthose who contemplate initiating service learning, may find it useful totake their cue from these findings, and examine strategies to augment thepositive effects of participation for girls. These findings suggest, too, thatplanners will do well to consider how boys are enrolled in service learning

261 258


when the program is elective; although more systematic information isneeded, it appears, from teacher reports, that in settings where participa-tion is voluntary neither integrated into the academic curriculum nor re-quired as a separate activity boys are customarily under-represented.

Other lessons of interest to the middle school practitioner have begunto emerge from recent or ongoing research projects. Rahima Wade (1995),in a study of the experience of ten teachers in integrating service into theacademic curriculum, found that "the rewarding aspects of teachers' ser-vice-learning experiences included: student enthusiasm, motivation, car-ing, and learning; recognition from others (i.e. administrators, colleagues,parents, the media); and perceived benefits for the community" (p. 1). Wadefound, too, that "the most problematic aspect is time: for planning projectsand fitting service into the school day" (p. 1). Other problems cited echoedthose mentioned in informal teacher reports from a variety of service learn-ing programs: difficulties in communicating with community agency rep-resentatives, limited finances and transportation, and lack of collegial andadministrative support.

At this writing, Search Institute, with a grant from the W.K. KelloggFoundation, is leading an effort to coordinate service learning research,and has developed an open network of a dozen or more organizations andscholars. Search Institute's emphasis is on K-12, but the network includesresearchers in university and college-based service learning. In addition,Brandeis University 's Center for Human Resources has undertaken a com-prehensive study of Learn and Serve America, the K-12 program of theCorporation for National Service. With this growth in systematic study ofthe rich variety of service learning efforts, practitioners can look forwardto expanding their knowledge of effective programs.

References



Center for Early Adolescence. (1983) Common Focus: An exchange of in-formation about early adolescence, 5 (2), 1-4.

Hodgkinson, V.A., & Weitzman, M.S. (1992). Giving and volunteering 1992;

Findings from a national survey. Washington, DC: The Gallup Organization .

Kraft, R. C. (1996). Service learning: An introduction to its theory, practice,

and effects. Education and Urban Society, 2 (2), 131-159.

Lipsitz, J. (1977). Growing up forgotten: A review of research and programs

concerning early adolesc&F, lixington, MA: Lexington Books.ti262

SEIWICE LEARNING AND YOUNG ADOLESCENTS

Mitchell, J. (1986). The nature of adolescence. Calgary, Alberta, Canada:Detselig Enterprises Ltd.

Schine, J., & Campbell, P. (1987). Helping to success: Early adolescentsand young children. NY: Bruner Foundation.

Search Institute of Minneapolis. (1991). Source, 7 (3).Shumer, R., & Belbas, B. (1996). What we know about service learning.

Education and Urban Society, Special issue: Learning by serving and doing, 28(2), 208-223.

Switzer, G. E., Simmons, R. G., Dew, M., Regalski, J., & Wang, C. (1995).

The effect of a school-based helper program on adolescent self-image, attitutdes,

and behavior. Journal of Early Adolescence, 15 (4), 429-455.Wade, R.C. (1995, April) Contextual influences on teachers' experiences

with community service-learning. Paper presented at the annual meeting of theAmerican Educational Research Association, San Francisco.

263

Judith A. Brough

Home-School Partnerships:A Critical Link

Many educators agree that parental involvement in schools is de-sirable and has positive impact on students' levels of achieve-ment and behavior in school. What is less understood are the

depths of benefits and the roles educators can play in influencing levels offamily involvement in specific middle level school programs.

Education Secretary Richard Riley (1996) said, "Thirty years of re-search shows that when family and community members are directly in-volved in education, children achieve better grades and higher test scores,have much higher reading comprehension, graduate at higher rates, are morelikely to enroll in higher education, and are better behaved" (p. 1). As edu-cators, we tend to agree with Secretary Riley's statement, but throw ourhands up in resignation when parents neglect to show up for conferencesand workshops. It would seem more productive to analyze why the parentsare not involved and build a partnership program which will be appealingto a wide range of family structures and backgrounds. This article presentsthe best thinking concerning reasons for noninvolvement as well as theresearch findings of specific benefits which can be experienced throughhigh levels of parent involvement. Successful parental involvement pro-grams are described and key elements and practices are listed.

CI Barriers to involvementReasons for noninvolvement are as many and varied as there are fami-

lies. Some parents, quite simply, do not understand how vital their involve-ment is to the academic success of their children. They want what is bestfor their children, but may not understand the level of involvement andsupport that is necessary. Other parents probably were not particularly en-

265 261


amored with schooling as adolescents themselves, and they may find itdistasteful to return to the school as adults. The school system and its edu-cators may intimidate parents with more expensive clothes, different vo-cabularies, or different language and customs. Parents may be distrustfulof professionals who have never experienced life as they know it. Addi-tionally, some parents just do not have the time or energy to become activein school functions. The Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development(1996) described the difficulties:

...job and career demands, the rigid boundaries between workand home life, and the frequent claims on their time and re-sources from aging parents or younger children, among otherconstraints. Existing school policies and teacher attitudes, inaddition, have long discouraged the involvement or acceptedthe absence of parents in school activities beyond the elemen-tary school years. pp. 21-22

In their study of parent involvement barriers, Leitch and Tangri (1988)found that parents cited such reasons as "health problems, economic dif-ferences between themselves and teachers, and work responsibilities. Par-ents also said they felt that teachers looked down on them for not being assuccessful as teachers" (p. 74). One third of reporting parents said that theyhad not been asked to do anything for or with the school.

It is especially difficult for single and working parents to becomeinvolved. As more mothers have joined the work force, the traditional meansof school-home communication have become less effective and successful.The Educational Testing Service (ETS) (1992) reported that "one in fivechildren live in a single-parent family, . . . more than double the proportionin 1965" (p. 2). Gough (1991) found that 60% of students live in homeswhere the lone parent or both parents work. Yet, test results examined byETS showed that students with two parents in the home scored consider-ably higher on achievement tests than those with one parent. The differ-ence remained even after considering the fact that single-parent families,on average, have lower income and less education (ETS, 1992).

Unfortunately, parent involvement enjoyed by elementary schoolstends to decrease as students move from elementary to middle level schools(Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development, 1989; Epstein, 1987). Par-ents feel less able to help with their middle level student's school work andexpress a desire for more leadership and guidance from teachers (Dauber& Epstein, 1989). Many parents also become intimidated by conferenceswhere they are faced by four or five teaching team members. The very

2.62 266

HOME-SCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS: A CRITICAL LINK

structure of most middle level schools discourages many parents from re-maining involved in their children's educations (Berla, 1991).

These changes in school, family, and society make it even more vitalthat parents and schools collaborate, but make it more difficult to do so(Coleman, 1987; Corner, 1986; Johnston, 1990; Takanishi, 1993). It, there-fore, is imperative that middle level educators develop alternate means forenhancing home-school partnerships in their school communities.

ID Benefits from parent involvementAll students seem to benefit from parental involvement in the school,

but the effects are more significant and longer lasting for children of theinvolved parents. Students whose parents are involved report increased mo-tivation and understand school as being important to them. These studentsexperience higher levels of achievement, are less likely to drop out, havefewer absences from school, and maintain better relationships with theirparent(s). Epstein and Herrick (1991) found that students who worked withtheir parents on Summer Home Learning Packets completed more learningactivities and achieved better than expected in school the following fall.

Parent involvement makes a difference in the academic achievementof middle level students. As a matter of fact, Henderson (1991) went so faras to say that "the single most important determinant of a child's success inschool, and ultimately throughout life, is not family status, education level,income or IQ. It is whether that child's parents are involved in his or hereducation" (p. 6). In elementary schools with high levels of parent involve-ment, children did better in reading comprehension. The average readingscores of fourth graders were 26 points below the national average whereinvolvement was low, but 17 points above the national average where par-ent involvement was high (National Center for Education Statistics, 1996).

According to the 1992 National Assessment of Education Progress,90% of the differences in math achievement were attributable to factorswhich can be controlled in the home: student absences, reading materialsavailable in the home, reading aloud with children, and the amount of tele-vision watching (Lewis, 1995). The National Education Longitudinal Study(NELS:88) showed that proficiency scores of eighth graders in reading andmath were related to parental involvement (Horn & West, 1992). Parentand community involvement indisputably improves student motivation andachievement and reduces dropout rates and delinquency (see, for example,Coleman, 1987; Corner, 1986; Henderson, 1988; Henderson & Berla, 1994;Moles, 1994). Henderson and Berla (1994) stated that "the most accuratepredictor of a student's achievement in school is not income or social sta-

267

'263


tus, but the extent to which that student's family is able to: 1) create a homeenvironment that encourages learning, 2) express high (but not unrealistic)expectations for their children's achievement and future careers, and 3)become involved in their children's education at school and in the commu-nity" (p.1).

Involved parents feel more comfortable with teachers and the schoolprogram. Their children do better academically and they get more accurateand frequent information from the school. Involved parents more likelyknow how to help their middle school children at home, understand cur-ricular requirements, and are more apt to attend school functions and meet-ings.

Schools with strong parent involvement programs report receivingmore information and backing from the home. Teachers who form parentpartnerships benefit from higher student achievement gains and strongerhome support. Students are then more likely to do homework and to per-ceive school as being important. Parents are more apt to believe teachersand schools to be effective and to support school reform initiatives (Ruth-erford & Billig, 1995; Tracy, 1995).

Zi Programs and modelsOver the past fifteen years, several effective programs and models for

building and maintaining home-school partnerships have been developed,implemented, and evaluated. Two of the more notable specific models ofparent involvement were designed by Joyce Epstein (1987) and JanetChrispeels (1992). Both authors acknowledged that family involvementdoes and should include various roles and responsibilities on the parts offamily members and school personnel.

Epstein's model (Epstein & Connors, 1992) included the followingcomponents:

1. Basic obligations of parents responsibilities of parents to ensuretheir children's health and safety; supervision, discipline and guid-ance of the children; and building of an environment which supportsschool learning and appropriate behavior.

2. Basic obligations of schools the school's responsibilities of com-municating about school programs and student progress

3. Parent involvement in school parent support of and attendance atperformances, events, workshops and other programs offered by theschool. It also includes parent volunteers in the school.

4. Parent involvement at home parent monitoring and assistance withlearning activities at home which coordinate with class work.

2 '6 4268


5. Parent involvement in school governance and advocacy parent in-volvement in school advisory committees, PTO/PTA organizations,and/or groups which monitor school improvement programs.

6. Collaborations and exchanges with the community community mem-bers and young adolescents building working relationships.

Chrispeels (1992) described parental involvement in terms of an hier-archical configuration. Implementation of lower levels would foster par-ticipation at the higher levels. She described the following involvementroles:

1. Co-communicators communications between home and school.2. Co-supporters parents and educators working together to support

learning at home and school.3. Co-learners educators and parents attending or presenting work-

shops to promote understanding.4. Co-teachers educators provide parents and students with home learn-

ing activities and strategies.5. Co-decision-makers school personnel and parent collaborate on edu-

cational decisions.Many middle level schools report involvement on the first two levels

of both models, but few enjoy more complex home-school partnerships(Dietz, 1992; Leiderman, 1996).

Various other models for involvement are described in EducationalLeadership, April 1996; Schools in the Middle, Winter, 1992; Phi DeltaKappan, January 1991; For Our Children: Parents and Families in Educa-tion, Results of the National Parent Involvement Summit, April 1992, Na-tional PTA; International Journal of the W.K. Kellogg Foundation, Vol-ume 3, number 2 (to order the publication write to W.K. Kellogg Founda-tion, Media Resources Division, P.O.Box 5196, Battle Creek, MI 49016.No date is given for the publication). Several models are described in sourceslisted in the references. Factors consistent among the models are that schoolsassess the effectiveness of their own efforts at developing home-schoolpartnerships, determine why uninvolved parents are not assuming a role inschool activities, build a rationale and commitment for getting the parentsand families involved, and make a concerted and unflagging effort to reachall families.

ID Key elements and practicesWhile parent involvement begins with reading at home, it expands as

childhood gives way to adolescence. Information regarding effective269

265


parenting, characteristics of young adolescents, study skills, and new cur-ricular demands is necessary for families of middle level students. Youngadolescents seem to dislike parental interference, but the adolescent stageis precisely when the need for parental roles is amplified. Although manyyoung adolescents voice a distaste for parent involvement, the majoritycherish it.

Researchers (see, for example, Becker & Epstein, 1982; Berla, 1992;Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development, 1996; Chrispeels, 1991;Epstein & Herrick, 1991; Foster-Harrison & Peel 1995; Leiderman, 1996;Rutherford & Billig, 1995; Rutherford, Billig & Kettering, 1995; Tracy,1995) recommended the following practices to enhance home-school part-nerships:

1. Schools actively work to involve parents and keep them informedabout school policies and events. Goals and policies regarding parentinvolvement should be needs-driven, and legitimized by being clearlywritten, easily understood, evaluated often, and administratively sup-ported.

2. Parents are actually recruited for involvement in programs throughvarious means. In addition to newsletters, brochures, and phone calls,educators employ home visits, personal invitations, media blitzes,agency referrals, clergy and community participation, and family learn-ing centers to solicit family involvement. Parent recognition programsare developed with the support of local businesses and other organi-zations.

3. Communications such as conferences, orientations, newsletters, per-sonal notes, and phone calls are frequent and supported by schoolpolicy, procedure, leadership, and allocated resources. Telecommu-nications and video tapes are used effectively. Homework, calendar,and bilingual hot lines are used. Educators acknowledge various fam-ily structures, work schedules, and ethnic and cultural backgrounds.Translators are provided if needed. Transportation for non-mobileparents is provided as is child care for students and siblings.

4. Middle level schools establish practices and staffing patterns that en-courage and support home-school partnerships. Practices are open,friendly, and welcoming. Schools establish a parent liaison position.Parents are familiar with and understand the various roles they canplay in the home-school partnership. Parents feel comfortable in theschool and benefit from a place in the school where they can work(i.e. a parents' center or resource room). Educators analyze the cul-

270

266


ture of the school to determine how welcoming they really are toparents and community members. Conferences are held with collabo-rative rather than confrontational attitudes and procedures. Roundtables, for example, are more conducive to collaborative efforts thanrectangular tables where teachers sit on one side and parents on theother.

5. Educators market the importance of middle level education and buildopportunities for businesses and community groups to interact mean-ingfully with young adolescents. Schools develop means for commu-nity, business, and agency representatives to support the school pro-gram.

6. Schools provide parents with information and strategies to enhancetheir youngsters' academic success. Parents learn how to support theirchildren's learning at home, even when the work becomes difficult.They learn why their support is so crucial and how to support theirchildren's learning within their own constraints. They learn aboutyoung adolescent growth and development, signs of physical andmental distress, ways of promoting healthful life-styles, and meansof preventing risky behaviors and relationships.

7. Parents, community members, and students are included in decisionsabout curriculum and instruction.

8. Staff development about family involvement practices is provided forteachers. Training for parent/community volunteers and leaders isrecommended. Teachers understand the importance of home-schoolrelationships and can articulate rationale and effective practices toparents. Teachers develop and maintain attitudes and behaviors thatwelcome and encourage family involvement.

1:1 ConclusionsEducators frequently complain that "it's always the parents who are

involved who don't need to be, and the parents who aren't involved whoneed to be." This dilemma is not a coincidence. Parent involvement itselfaffects student achievement. In the past, though, we have tended to blamestudent lack of ambition, motivation, or achievement on the neglectful par-ent and assume there was nothing we could do. Research has shown other-wise. With a sincere commitment to increasing parent involvement and anacceptance of the changes in family structures, schools can create home-school partnerships which meet the needs and constraints of all involved.We cannot afford NOT to have family involvement. Middle level educa-tors must find ways and means to build strong partnerships, thus insuring

271

2 6 7


our own success in helping our students to reach their potentials. We can-not do it alone. It is time to admit to ourselves that "Trying to educate theyoung without help and support from the home is akin to trying to rakeleaves in a high wind" (Gough, 1991, p. 339). 0

Selected BibliographyBecker, H., & Epstein, J. (1982) Influence on teachers' use of parent in-

volvement at home. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University, Center forSocial Organization of Schools (Report No. 324).

Berla, N. (1991). Parent involvement at the middle school level. The EricReview, 1 (3), 16-20.

Berla, N. (1992). Getting parents involved. Education Digest, 58 (2), 118-119.


paring American youth for the 21st century. New York: Carnegie Corporation.Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development (1996). Great transitions:

Preparing adolescents for a new century. New York: Carnegie Corporation.Chrispeels, J.H. (1991). District leadership in parent involvement. Phi Delta

Kappan, 72 (5), 367-371.Chrispeels, J.H. (1992). School restructuring to facilitate parent and com-

munity involvement in the middle grades. Paper presented at A Working Confer-

ence: Parent and Community Involvement in the Middle Grades, Crystal City, VA.

Coleman, J.S. (1987). Families and schools. Educational Researcher, 16 (6),

32-38.

Corner, J.P. (1986). Parent participation in the schools. Phi Delta Kappan,67 (6), 442-446.

Dauber, S., & Epstein, J. (1989). Parent attitudes and practices of parentinvolvement in inner-city elementary and middle schools (Report No. 32). Balti-

more: Center for Research in Elementary and Middle Schools, Johns HopkinsUniversity. (ERIC ED 314152)

Dietz, M. (1992). Principals and parent involvement in Wisconsin middlelevel public schools. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin,

Madison.

Educational Testing Service (1992). America' s smallest school: The family.

Princeton, NJ: Policy Information Center.

Epstein, J. (1987). Parent involvement: What research says to administra-tors. Educational and Urban Society, 19 (2), 119-136.

Epstein, J. (1987). What principals should know about parent involvement.

Principal, 66 (3), 6-9.

268 272


Epstein, J., & Dauber, S. (1991). School programs and teacher practices of

parent involvement in inner-city elementary and middle schools. The ElementarySchool Journal, 91 (3), 289-305.

Epstein, J., & Herrick, S. (1991). Implementation and effects of summer home

learning packets in the middle grades (Report No. 21). Baltimore: Center for Re-search on Effective Schooling for Disadvantaged Students.

Epstein, J., & Connors, L. (1992). School and family partnerships. Practi-tioner, 28 (4), 1-4.

Foster-Harrison, E.S., & Peel, H.A. (1995). Parents in the middle: Initiatives

for success. Schools in the Middle, 5 (2), 45-47.

Gough, P. (1991). Tapping parent power. Phi Delta Kappan, 72 (5) 339.

Henderson, A. (1988). Parents are a school's best friends. Phi Delta Kappan,

70 (2), 148-153.

Henderson, A. (1991). Why parent involvement? In Wisconsin Departmentof Public Instruction, Families and education: An educator' s resource for familyinvolvement (pp. 6-7 ) Madison, WI: Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction.

Henderson, A., & Berla, N. (1994). A new generation of evidence: The fam-

ily is critical to student achievement. Washington, DC: National Committee forCitizens in Education.

Horn, L., & West, J. (1992). National educational longitudinal study of 1988:

A profile of parents of eighth graders. Washington, DC: National Center for Edu-cational Statistics. (NCES 92-488).

Johnston, J.H. (1990). The new American family and the school. Columbus,

OH: National Middle School Association.

Kellogg Foundation (n.d.). Families and neighborhoods: Building blocks for

a prosperous future. An issue of International Journal of the WK. Kellogg Foun-dation, 3 (2).

Leiderman, J. (1996). Factors associated with parent involvement in themiddle grades. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Lehigh University.

Leitch, M. L.,& Tangri, S. (1988). Barriers to home-school collaboration.Educational Horizons, 66 (2), 70-74.

Lewis, A.C. (1995). Changing views of parent involvement. Phi DeltaKappan, 76 (6), 430-431.

Moles, 0., Project Director (1994). Home learning recipes. Washington, DC:

Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education.

National PTA (1992). For our children: Parents and families in education.Chicago: Author.

National Center for Education Statistics (1996). Reading literacy in the United

States: Findings from the lEA Reading Literacy Study. U.S. Department of Educa-

tion, NCES 96-258.273

269


Riley, R. (1996). Secretary Riley urges Americans to get involved in educa-

tion, Community Update, (No. 38). U.S. Department of Education, Washington,DC.

Rutherford, B., & Billig, S. (1995). Eight lessons of parent, family, and com-

munity involvement in the middle grades. Phi Delta Kappan, 77 (1), 64-68.

Rutherford, B., Billig, S., & Kettering, J. (1995). A review of the researchand practice literature on parent and community involvement. In B. Rutherford(Ed.), Creating familylschool partnershiPs (pp. 3-73). Columbus, OH: NationalMiddle School Association.

Takanishi, R. (1993). Changing views of adolescence in contemporary soci-

ety. In R. Takanishi (Ed.), Adolescence in the 1990' s: Risk and opportunity (pp. 1-

7). NY: Teachers College Press.

Tracy, J. (1995). Family... involving families in student achievement. Schools

in the Middle, 5 (2), 31-37.

274

MOM VOA RKRR WRRR KgR , aRffIRA ,13,Y t13,1i

06, W 1B 6 kR

RRI 7 a t R44

iIRkRRRRRI, mkiv r32:12

RRkkRRkklRR

Valentine

Whitaker

Hough

Trimble

Mizelle

Mullins

Organization

Jerry ValentineUniversity of MissouriColumbia, Missouri

Todd WhitakerIndiana State UniversityTerre Haute, Indiana

David HoughSouthwest Missouri StateUniversitySpringfield, Missouri

Susan B. TrimbleGeorgia Southern UniversityStatesboro, Georgia

Nancy B. MizelleUniversity of GeorgiaAthens, Georgia

Emmett MullinsHarbins Elementary SchoolGwinnett County, Georgia

271

Jerry Valentine and Todd Whitaker

Organizational Trends and Practices inMiddle Level Schools

Historians are quick to remind us that the value of history lies not inthe documentation of the past per se, but in the manner with whichan understanding of the past informs the future. Therein lies the

goal of this chapter What significant organizational trends in middle leveleducation inform future practice? The importance of understanding the pastand present to prepare for the future is evident. Contemporary futurist JoelBarker even described this ability as a key leadership skill. He said that arole of the school leader is to "visit" the future and report what you haveobserved (Barker, 1992).

This chapter provides a research summary of three middle level orga-nizational trends and offers thoughts about the implications of those trendsfor current practice. The organizational trends selected for this chapter in-clude schools' organizational grade patterns, enrollment, and schedules.The chapter also suggests three research reports for the professional library

reports that provide more detail about trends discussed in this chapterand other issues frequently faced by middle level practitioners.

L:1 Organizational grade patternsOur analysis of critical information that informs the current era of

middle level education begins with the general issue of organizational gradepatterns, in other words, what grades should be grouped together for opti-mum effectiveness. We begin our analysis of grade patterns with data fromWilliam Alexander's seminal study of middle schools. In 1967-68 Alexander(1968) identified 1,101 middle schools across the United States. These num-.bers did not include schools with grades 7-8 and 7-8-9. However, the studyhas been recognized as the first major national analysis of middle schools.

277

2 72


Since 1967, the number of middle schools has grown steadily. In 1981,Valentine, Clark, Nickerson, and Keefe (1981) reported 4,094 schools withgrade patterns 5-8 or 6-8. Fifteen years later, McEwin, Dickinson, andJenkins (1996) reported data from 7,378 schools. During the same timespan, the 7-8-9 junior high organizational pattern declined dramatically,dropping from a high of 67% of the approximately 7000 schools in 1965(Rock &Hemphill, 1966) to 33% of the 12,226 schools in 1981 (Valentine,Clark, Nickerson, & Keefe, 1981) and then to 19% of 12,100 schools in1992 (Valentine et al., 1993). Simply stated, the past three decades havebeen a meteoric rise of the "middle school" organizational pattern of 5-8and 6-8 and the demise of the 7-9 "junior high" pattern. In the most recentnational study McEwin and associates (1996) reported 7,378 schools of 6-8 or 5-8 grade patterns and only 1,425 schools of 7-9 grade patterns, athirty year drop from approximately 4,700 to 1,425.

With such a drastic grade pattern shift, researchers commonly askedschool leaders why their schools transitioned to a 5-8 or 6-8 grade pattern.Alexander (1968) noted that the most common reason was to "adjust toenrollment needs." However, by 1981 (Valentine et al., 1981) the mostcommon response was "to provide a program best suited to the needs of themiddle level age student." That response continued as the most commonthrough the eighties and nineties (Alexander & McEwin, 1989; Valentineet al., 1993; McEwin et al., 1996). Such data support the notion that middlelevel education of the nineties is more focused on programs designed tomeet the needs of young adolescents than was the case three decades ago.

Is a particular grade pattern viewed by educators as more appropriatefor young adolescents than other grade patterns? That question was askedof principals in a 1966 national study (Rock & Hemphill, 1966) and hasbeen repeated in each of the major national studies since that time. In 1966,a majority of principals believed that the 7-9 grade pattern was most appro-priate for young adolescents. By 1981, that belief shifted significantly, with54% favoring the 6-8 configuration (Valentine et al., 1981). The shift con-tinued into the nineties, with 72% favoring 6-8 by 1992 (Valentine et al.,1993).

1:/ ImplicationsAs McEwin et al. (1996) concluded, "increasing numbers of school

districts across the nation are moving to the three-tier school organizationwhich usually includes separately organized middle schools with grades 5-8 or 6-8. Decisions regarding grade organization are increasingly beingmade based on what is bepf Joung adolescents rather than on expedi-

278

ORGANIZATIONAL TRENDS AND PRACTICES

ency and tradition" (p. 131). Clearly, most middle level educators believethat a middle school organizational pattern is more appropriate for studentsthan a junior high pattern. Therefore, if the overwhelming majority of schoolleaders from across the country who work with young adolescents is con-vinced that students are better served in this organizational structure, policymakers evaluating school effectiveness or considering reorganization shouldtake note of this collective wisdom.

ED School enrollment trendsTrends in student enrollment in middle level schools also provide

insight for current policy makers. In 1966, Rock and Hemphill reportedthat 43% of middle level schools served between 500 and 1,000 students,with 23% serving more than 1,000. In 1981, 49% of middle level schoolsenrolled between 400 and 800 students, with 13% having more than 1,000students (Valentine et al., 1981). By 1992 the numbers were 50% between400 and 800 and 16% above 1,000 (Valentine et al., 1993). McEwin et al.(1996) noted a similar increase between 1988 and 1993 of schools withvery large enrollments. If this pattern continues, it has significant implica-tions for school programs. As McEwin et al. (1996) noted, "the trend to-ward larger middle schools raises concerns among those who question theability of these larger schools to be developmentally responsive to the needsof young adolescents" (p. 17).

During this time of increasing enrollment, school leaders' opinionsabout appropriate school size moved toward smaller enrollments. For ex-ample, in 1981 (Valentine et al.. 1981) 36% of principals favored schoolsizes between 600 and 800 students and 27% believed optimum size wasbetween 400 and 600. By 1993 (Valentine et al., 1993) 27% favored the600-800 range and 41% favored the 400 to 600 range. Such beliefs areconsistent with the general educational literature which supports down-sizing schools for effectiveness.

ED ImplicationsFrom the practical perspective of administering a school system, se-

lecting optimal enrollment in a given school is difficult to manage. Shiftingenrollment patterns, financial issues, facilities, and community values di-rectly affect school enrollment possibilities. However, efforts to down-sizemay be an issue worth pursuing. Middle level leaders support in unison the

notion that "smaller is better." Policy makers should consider both schoolenrollment as well as grade patterns when planning district reorganizationor construction.

279

274


1:1 School schedule trendsThe school's schedule should support instructional practices most ap-

propriate for middle level students. The flexible, interdisciplinary blockschedule commonly described in middle level literature can easily be con-fused with the "high school alternating-day block schedule" or 4 by 4 planscurrently in vogue in secondary school reform. While those alternatingblocks may be appropriate as a transition between a traditional departmen-talized schedule and a flexible interdisciplinary block schedule, little re-search or literature supports that type of schedule in lieu of the flexible-block schedule so long espoused by middle level educators. While varia-tions of the flexible block schedule are described in recent literature(Williamson, 1993), the flexible, interdisciplinary block schedule has be-come a trademark of middle level education. Our purpose in this chapter isnot to argue for or against the worth of a particular schedule, but to addressevident scheduling trends.

Though strongly advocated for many years as the most appropriateinstructional delivery system for middle level students, flexible block sched-ules are not the most common type of schedules in middle level schoolsacross the country. In 1993, Valentine and associates reported traditionalperiod-by-period schedules as most common. In 1966, McEwin and col-leagues were able to clarify just how pervasive daily periods of uniformlength were. They were present in more than 85% of 6-7-8 middle schools.They found flexible block schedules present in approximately 40% of thesixth and seventh grades and 27% of the eighth grades of 6-7-8 schools.

While it is easy to be pessimistic about school schedules and point tothe relatively low percentage of schools using a flexible block schedule,the trend has clearly been toward that schedule. In 1993, Valentine andcolleagues summarized data from three national studies which documentedthe continued growth of interdisciplinary teaming, the instructional pro-cess often associated with a flexible block schedule. The number of schoolsreporting interdisciplinary teaming increased from 33% in 1989 (Alexander& McEwin) to 42% in 1990 (Epstein & Mac Iver) to 57% in 1992 (Valen-tine et al.) in1993. As the emphasis on interdisciplinary instruction contin-ues, so too must the changes to more flexible, block-type schedules to ef-fectively facilitate this instructional process.

1=1 ImplicationsMcEwin and associates (1996) concluded, as had researchers before

them, that "all middle schools should implement flexible scheduling sothat developmentally responsive curriculum and instruction can occur" (p.

280

0 r-1


137). All middle level educators and policy makers have a responsibility toprovide a schooling experience that is developmentally responsive. Theinstructional schedule is the organizational heart of this responsibility.

Li Recommended readingsKnowing where to obtain critical information about middle level trends

can be as valuable as having specific information about a limited numberof trends. We have chosen to address three significant organizational trendsin this chapter. Limitations of space prevent the inclusion of trends aboutother issues such as organizational leadership, organizational staff, and in-structional programs. For insight about many of the trends in middle leveleducation, three recent national research reports are recommended. Copiesof each can be obtained from the professional organization that publishedthe study.

Education in the Middle Grades: National Practices and Trends. In1988, the Center for Research on Elementary and Middle Schools at TheJohns Hopkins University surveyed 2,400 public schools from some 25,000schools with grade seven in the grade pattern. Joyce L. Epstein and Dou-glas J. Mac Iver wrote the report published in 1990 by the National MiddleSchool Association. This study is worthy of note because the data are re-ported for the traditional middle level grades and for schools that serve theneeds of young adolescents outside the traditional grade configurations,e.g. K-8, K-12, and 7-12.

Leadership in Middle Level Education, Volume I: A National Surveyof Middle Level Leaders and Schools. From 1991 through 1993, the Na-tional Association of Secondary School Principals sponsored an extensivestudy of middle level programs and leadership. The first volume of thestudy provided detailed information about educational practices in middlelevel schools across the nation. The researchers and authors of the 1993report were Jerry W. Valentine, Donald C. Clark, Judith L. Irvin, James W.Keefe, and George Melton. The study was published in 1993 by NationalAssociation of Secondary School Principals.

America's Middle Schools: Practices and Progress A 25 Year Per-spective. The most recent national data of significance comes from C. Ken-neth McEwin, Thomas Dickinson, and Doris Jenkins. Their 1993 nationalsurvey of middle level schools used the 1988 Alexander and McEwin defi-nition of middle level which included schools with grade patterns 5-6-7-8,6-7-8, 7-8, and 7-8-9. Their report was published by National Middle SchoolAssociation in 1996. Chapter 14, Conclusions and Recommendations, wouldbe of particular value to any middle level educator seeking to understand

281276


the trends and practices of middle level education over the past three de-cades.

Ck Concluding thoughtsAs we conclude this chapter, we return to the historical concept posed

in the opening paragraph: What can we learn from the trends of the pastthat will inform us for the future? Many will argue that grade organiza-tional patterns are insignificant compared to the developmental appropri-ateness of the program for students at a given maturational stage. Whilethis may be sound theoretically, in practice it is evident that differencesexist between the educational practices found in schools of varying gradepatterns. McEwin and associates (1996) concluded that "Those believingthat grade organization is not a key factor in the success levels of middleschools need only to reflect on the findings of this and other recent studiesto see the fallacy of this assumption" (p. 131). They recommend that "gradeorganization decisions should be driven by the developmental characteris-tics, needs, and interests of young adolescents" (p. 131). Middle level edu-cation has moved at a deliberate speed toward embracing the middle schoolgrade level patterns. Every expectation exists that research will continue tosupport the value of smaller school enrollments and flexible block sched-ules, two trends discussed in this chapter. Perhaps educators should movewith more haste to implement those trends as well. A study of the threeresearch reports recommended in this chapter will provide additional in-sight about specific issues prevalent in specific schools. "Beam me up Scotty,for I have some insight into the future and I want to discuss with the crewhow to apply it to the present." E

ReferencesAlexander, W. (1968). A survey of organizational patterns of reorga-

nized middle schools. Research Project No. 7-D-026. Washington, DC:United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.

Alexander, W. M., & McEwin, C. K. (1989). Schools in the middle:Status and progress. Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association.

Barker, J. (1992). Paradigms: The business of discovering the future.New York: Harper Collins.

Epstein, J. L., & Mac Iver, D. J. (1990). Education in the middlegrades: National practices and trends. Columbus, OH: National MiddleSchool Association.

277282


McEwin, C. K., Dickinson, T. S., Jenkins, D. M. (1996). America'smiddle schools: Practices, and progress A 25 year perspective. Colum-bus, OH: National Middle School Association.

Rock, D. A., and Hemphill, J. K. (1966). The junior high schoolprincipalship. Washington, DC: National Association of Secondary SchoolPrincipals.

Valentine, J. W., Clark, D. C., Nickerson, N. C., & Keefe, J. W. (1981).The middle level principalship, Volume I: A survey of middle level princi-pals and programs. Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary SchoolPrincipals.

Valentine, J. W., Clark, D. C., Irvin, J. L., Keefe, J. W., & Melton, G.(1993). Leadership in middle level education,Volume I: A national surveyof middle level leaders and schools. Reston, VA: National Association ofSecondary School Principals.

Williamson, R. (1993). Scheduling the middle level school to meetearly adolescent needs. Reston, VA: National Association of SecondarySchool Principals.

283

David Hough

A Bona Fide Middle School: Programs,Policy, Practice, and Grade SpanConfigurations

Five important findings can be drawn from the research literatureaccompanying middle school programs, policies, and practice (i.e.,components) and grade span: (1) components are generally concep-

tualized in a similar, agreed-upon fashion by most middle school scholars,(2) these same components do enhance student achievement, (3) grade spandoes make a difference in student achievement, (4) the number of schoolsin the United States implementing middle school components around a6,7,8 grade span continues to grow, and (5) research is just now beginningto provide necessary data to help researchers ask the "right" questions lead-ing to definitive answers for the first time ever.

Middle school components are most often conceptualized as teams ofteachers meeting during a common planning time to (among other things)develop integrated curricula and teach within the structure of a flexibleschedule that allows for more in-depth study and experiential learning. Ad-visory programs are provided in an effort to establish positive relationshipsbetween young adolescents and adults, ensuring that students are knownwell by at least one adult. Students are encouraged to participate in intra-mural activities to build self-esteem and promote healthy life-styles. Ex-ploratory classes or enrichment experiences are provided to allow studentsa chance to experiment with novel subject matter and interest areas withoutfear of being penalized by a letter grade. And all of the above are accom-plished within small heterogeneous learning communities that emphasizecooperative teaching strategies that capitalize on the social dimension ofteaching and learning.

285 279


I:I BackgroundDiscussions surrounding middle level programs, policies, practice,

and grade span configurations spawn some of the most frequently askedquestions about middle level education. Chief among these (and underly-ing the entire middle level education movement) are questions associatedwith the impact of middle school components and grade span on studentoutcomes, especially academic achievement. While research on middle leveleducation programs, policies, and practice (i.e. components) has increasedover the past two-and-a-half decades, virtually all studies have focused onthe following: (a) ways to design and implement middle school compo-nents effectively, (b) the impact of this change process on teachers, teach-ing, and overall school organization, (c) student affect and/or teacher/prin-cipal perceptions of outcomes (Hough, 1991a; 1991b; 1991c; 1991d; Irvin,1992).Before 1996, not enough empirical data had been collected to show con-clusive evidence that any given combination of middle school componentsimplemented within any given grade span configuration impacted studentachievement (Hough, 1991d; Van Zant & Totten, 1995). This is not to saythat middle school components have no relationship to grade span. Theydo. However, until recent efforts guided by comprehensive empirical data,too much past research had been based on only a few studies that had con-centrated on a single program, policy, or practice (Hough, 1991a; 1991b;1991c; 1991d; Irvin, 1992; Mac Iver & Epstein, 1993; Melton, 1984), leav-ing too much to speculative theory and incipient understandings instead ofscientific fact the latter of which is now the central focus (Felner, 1996).

Bona fide "middle schools" can and do differ greatly in the numberand type of components operationalized at varying degrees; however, allshould exhibit specific programs, policies, and practice that meet the di-verse physical, social, emotional, moral, cognitive needs of young adoles-cents. These learners ranging roughly between 10 and 14 years of age aremost often, but not always, found in grades six, seven, and eight; somemay be found in the fifth grade, while others may be in the ninth grade, dueto differing rates of maturation. This wide range of diverse developmentadds to the component/grade span-outcomes conundrum.

Relationships among and between components and grade span to stu-dent achievement is measurable; however, the direct, indirect, and interac-tive paths of these relationships are just now being understood by research-ers. Preliminary findings indicate that the paths are seldom direct, but thatthey almost always interaq Aithone or more other variables and in concertdo favorably impact stud6nfikifievement when implemented conscien-

286

gO

A BONA FIDE MIDDLE SCHOOL

tiously over time (Felner, 1996). The plausibility of middle level educa-tion, then, necessitates broad definitions of a variety of far-ranging compo-nents and outcomes.

0 RationaleA bona fide middle school is not an organizational structure consist-

ing of a specific grade level configuration, set of components, and namethat includes the word middle. It is, however, any organizational structureconsisting of developmentally appropriate programs, policies, and practicetailored to maximize young adolescent learning while nurturing affect (Clark& Clark, 1993; Cuban, 1993; Epstein, 1990; Hough, 1989; Johnston, 1984;Romano & Georgiady, 1994). A number of demographic variables peculiarto a specific school community make an impact on middle level organiza-tional structures (Becker, 1987; Epstein, 1990; Hough, 1995a; 1995b; Hough& Irvin, 1995), and these factors do influence types, degrees and levels ofimplementation that make a difference in learning outcomes, includingachievement and socialization (Epstein, 1990; Hough, 1995b; Hough &Sills-Briegel, in press).

While middle school components most often refer to programs, poli-cies, and practice perceived to hold promise as effective ways to facilitatelearning and affect, not unlike other innovations in education or any otherfield, many of the effects or outcomes have yet to be fully substantiatedthrough empirical research (Hough, 1995a; 1995b; Mac Iver & Epstein,1993; Van Zant & Totten, 1995). Even though lack of data regarding theeffects of change prior to full implementation over time is not uncommonin any field of study, some have misconstrued incipient or incomplete dataand used same as grounds for opposing middle level education ideals. Toooften, well-meaning groups use "ipso facto" logic to challenge the efficacyof new approaches. In an effort to ensure the highest quality educationpossible for their children, parents and school boards sometimes associatedeclining test scores, for example, with what they may perceive to be a"warm-fuzzy" curriculum infused with advisory and exploratory classesthat detract from time that could be devoted to more rigorous "basics." Inan extreme example, some have been led to believe that middle level edu-cation has caused schools in rural communities to consolidate and believe,further, that consolidation is detrimental to children (see, e.g., De Young,Howley, & Theobald, 1995). In reality, while varied, middle level educa-tion programs, policies, and practice have more often been viewed as re-form initiatives to be implemented after consolidation had already takenplace. And many of these initiatives share basic philosophical and opera-

2872 8 1


tional similarities with middle school components that are grounded in re-search theory and composed of equally varied orientations, approaches,and methodologies (Cuban, 1993; Hough, 1995a; Mac Iver & Epstein, 1993).

In addition to descriptive data used to identify middle school compo-nents, two premises undergird the research/theory used to determine gradelevels most often found to be appropriate for inclusion in middle schools.The first premise holds that early adolescence is a separate developmentalstage situated between childhood and adolescence. The second premiseholds that appropriate programs, policies, and practice designed to meetyoung adolescent needs are difficult to generalize to grade levels becausediffering rates of maturation are highly individual between childhood andadolescence. Therefore, it would follow that the most prudent approach tothe grade configuration issue is to develop a bona fide middle school first,then determine which children are at the young adolescent stage beforeassigning them to grades in that organizational structure. Too often in thepast, the reverse has been tried, i.e., grouping students by grade level (ver-tical articulation) and then trying to manufacture solutions to fit whateverresulting grade span configuration emerges usually as a result of admin-istrative expediency in reaction to facilities utilization (e.g., Alexander, 1988;Johnston, 1984). This latter approach has not met with high levels of suc-cess (e.g., Hough, 1989; Van Zant & Totten, 1995). The former, however, isjust now being tried in enough locales nationally to allow for empiricalresearch to be conducted among truly different school types (Hough &Irvin, 1995).

1:3 Programs, policies, practice = componentsMiddle school components can be conceptualized in a variety of ways.

One very general rubric classifies all components as either curricular, co-curricular, or extramural programs. More often, middle level researchers,scholars, and practitioners refer to a list of programs, policies, and practicethat often vary in number from six to twelve (e.g., Epstein & Mac Iver,1990; McEwin, Dickinson, Erb, & Scales, 1995; Romano & Georgiady,1994). Among the most common are advisory, intramurals, teaching teamswith common planning time, flexible (usually block) scheduling, integratedcurricula (multidisciplinary or interdisciplinary), and exploratory classes.Each of these, as well as additional "components," are discussed in somedepth throughout this volume.

Since 1989, Turning Points: Preparing American Youth for the 21stCentury (Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development, 1989) has beenthe catalyst for development of both components and blueprints for de-

288

282


signing and implementing bona fide middle schools throughout the UnitedStates (e.g., Oakes, Serna, & Guiton, 1996). Using Turning Points as ablueprint, many schools have developed and implemented a variety of pro-grams, policies, and practices that focus on the following: creating smallcommunities for learning in which every student is known well by at leastone adult; designing and teaching a common core of academics that centersaround literacy, the sciences, critical thinking, healthy life-styles, ethicalbehavior, and citizenship in a pluralistic society; ensuring success for allstudents by eliminating tracking by achievement while promoting coopera-tive learning and flexible instructional time; empowering teachers and ad-ministrators; exerting more centralized control over instruction leading tohigh levels of measurable performance; staffing middle grades with teach-ers who have been specially prepared to teach young adolescents; improv-ing academic performance through fostering health and fitness; reengagingfamilies through meaningful roles and school governance; and connectingschool with communities by forming partnerships that are mutually respon-sible for students' success (Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development,1989).

In addition, a new blueprint, Great Transitions (Carnegie Council onAdolescent Development, 1996), published as the fourth and concludingreport of the Carnegie Task Force on Education and Young Adolescence,along with a new position paper from National Middle School Association(NMSA), This We Believe: Developmentally Responsive Middle LevelSchools (1995), may very well become the next catalysts for middle levelschool improvement by providing innovative ways of viewing the compo-nents of a middle school. Using This We Believe as a guide, middle schoolswould design programs, policies, and practice addressing the following:curriculum that is challenging, integrative, and exploratory; varied teach-ing and learning approaches; assessment and evaluation that promote learn-ing; flexible organizational structures; health, wellness, and safety; com-prehensive guidance and support services (NMSA, 1995).

An encouraging facet of the NMSA rubric of reform is that, regard-less of how programs, policies, and practices are fashioned, the middleschool components become descriptive rather than prescriptive in nature.This is a marked departure from earlier efforts to replicate componentsacross schools. The descriptive nature of these middle school componentsguards against proselytizing or attempts to routinize charismatic reforminitiatives. Instead, the NMSA recommendations concentrate on custom-ized components to meet individual school improvement plans in conjunc-tion with community needs and preference. While site-based initiatives are

289 2 8 3


welcome, "customization" adds to the methodological complexities pre-sented researchers studying the effect of components and grade span onstudent outcomes, including achievement.

I:I The relationship between components and grade spanBefore the mid 1980s, designing a "middle school" had traditionally

involved grouping students by grade level (e.g., 7-8, 6-8, 7-9) and chang-ing the name of the school from junior high to middle school. Numerousdescriptive studies have documented this reorganization movement and haveexamined changing demographics by grade level configuration, usuallynoting decreases in the number of 7-9 and K-6 schools coupled with in-creases in the number of K-5 and 6-8 schools (Alexander & McEwin, 1989;Hough 1991a; 1991b; 1991c; McEwin, Dickinson, & Jenkins, 1996; Val-entine, Clark, Nickerson, & Keefe, 1981; Valentine, Clark, Irvin, Keefe, &Melton, 1993). According to the National Center for Education Statistics(1995) and verified by McEwin, Dickinson, & Jenkins (1995), the follow-ing data were identified for the most common grade spans housing a sev-enth-grade in 1993:

Number and Percent ofMiddle Level Schools in 1993 by Grade Span

Grade Number Percent Past 20Span of of Years %

Schools Total of Change

5-8 1,223 11% + 53%6-8 6,115 55% +293%7-8 2,412 22% + 5%7-9 1,424 13% 91%

If one begins by examining the seventh grade and then expands theexamination in a direction either toward higher grade levels included in theschool's overall configuration or toward lower grade levels, a clear patternemerges. As higher grades are included, say the 8th and 9th, programs,policies, and practices tend to be more subject centered. Fewer compo-nents are operational and at lower levels. As lower grades are included, saythe 6th and 5th, programs, policies, and practices tend to be more student-centered. More components are generally operational and at a higher level

.284 29°


in schools with these lower grades including K-8 schools (Hough, 1995a).In short, there is a relationship between components and grade span.

The above is an important finding whenever one considers how mostyoung adolescent students are grouped for instruction. More than 35 dif-ferent grade span configurations contain a seventh grade. Of these, sevenare common enough to warrant attention (PK/K/1 - 8, 4-8, 5-8, 6-8, 7-8, 7-9, 7-12), and four grade spans (5-8, 6-8, 7-8, 7-9) house almost 90% of allseventh-grade students (Hough, 1995b).

Most recently, attention has focused on programmatic and policychanges that seek to effect changes in practice. As a result, young adoles-cent teaching-learning dimensions have been determined to be more closelyaligned to elementary schooling than to secondary schooling (Epstein, 1990;Hough 1995a; Mac Iver, 1990; Melton, 1984; Scales & McEwin, 1994).Many states have changed their teaching certification requirements to re-flect this shift. Instead of being an "add-on" to the secondary certificate,middle level teaching certification is becoming more closely aligned to theelementary program, or it is a stand-alone program (McEwin, Dickinson,Erb, & Scales, 1995; Swaim & Stefanich, 1996). These developments haveled to closer scrutiny of appropriate grade level configurations, especiallyplacement of fifth, sixth, and ninth grade students.

Regardless of their grade span placement, young adolescents shouldnot be thrust into an inappropriate learning environment. The most prudentapproach is to develop appropriate programs, policies, and practices foryoung adolescents first, then place students into the resulting organiza-tional structure. E

ReferencesAlexander, W. M. (1988). Schools in the middle: Rhetoric and reality.

Social Education, 52 (2), 107-121.Alexander, W. M., & McEwin, C. K. (1989). Schools in the middle:

Status and progress. Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association.Becker, H.J. (1987). Addressing the needs of different groups of early

adolescents: Effects of varying school and classroom organizational prac-tices on students from different social backgrounds and abilities. (ReportNo. 16, June). Baltimore: VSP Industries

Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development. (1989). Turning points:Preparing American youth for the twenty-first century. New York: Carnegie

Corporation.

291

5


Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development. (1996). Great transi-tions: Preparing adolescents for a new century. New York: Carnegie Cor-poration.

Clark, S.N., & Clark, D.C. (1993). Middle level school reforms: Therhetoric and the reality. The Elementary School Journal, 139 (5), 447 460.

Cuban, L. (1993). What happens to reforms that last? The case of thejunior high school. American Education Research Journal, 29 (1), 227-251.

DeYoung A.J., Howley, C., & Theobald, P. (1995). The cultural con-tradictions of middle schooling for rural community survival. Journal ofResearch in Rural Education, 11 (2), 24-35.

Epstein, J.L. (1990). What matters in the middle gradesgrade spanor practices? Phi Delta Kappan, 71 (6), 438-444.

Epstein, J.L., & Mac Iver, D.J. (1990). Education in the middle grades:National practices and trends. Columbus, OH: National Middle SchoolAssociation.

Felner, R. (November, 1996). Most frequently asked questions aboutmiddle level education. Presentation made to the National Middle SchoolAssociation National Conference, Baltimore, MD.

Hough, D. (1995a). The elemiddle school: A model for middle gradesreform. Principal, 74 (3), 6-9.

Hough, D. (November, 1995b). The effect of grade-span configura-tion on student outcomes. Research Symposium, presented to the AnnualConference of the National Middle School Association. New Orleans, LA.

Hough, D. (April, 1991a). A review of middle level organization. Pa-per presented to the American Educational Research Association, AnnualConference, Chicago, IL.

Hough, D. (1991b). A review of middle level organization. Resourcesin Education. Eugene, OR: ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Manage-ment.

Hough, D. (February, 1991c). Middle level organization: A curricu-lum policy analysis. Paper presented to the National Association of Sec-ondary School Principal National Convention; Orlando, FL.

Hough, D. (1991d). Setting a research agenda for middle level educa-tion. Crossroads, 1 (1), 3-11.

Hough, D. (1989) Vertical articulation for the middle grades. River-side, CA: California Educational Research Cooperative, University of Cali-fornia (ERIC Document Reproduction Number ED 315 8e).

292

286


Hough, D., & Sills-Briegel, T. (in press). Student achievement andmiddle level programs, policies, and practices in rural America: The caseof community-based v. consolidated organizations. Journal of Research inRural Education.

Irvin, J. (1992). A research agenda for middle level education: Anidea whose time has come. Current Issues in Middle Level Education, 1(1), 21-29.

Johnston, J. H. (1984). A synthesis of research findings on middlelevel education. In J.H. Lounsbury (Ed.), Perspectives: Middle school edu-cation, 1964-1984 (pp. 134-156). Columbus, OH: National Middle SchoolAssociation.

Mac Iver, D.J. (1990). Meeting the needs of young adolescents: Ad-visory groups, interdisciplinary teaching teams, and school transition pro-grams. Phi Delta Kappan, 71 (6), 458-464.

Mac Iver, D.J., & Epstein, J.L. (1993). Middle grades research: Notyet mature, but no longer a child. The Elementary School Journal, 93 (5),519-533.

McEwin, C.K., Dickinson, T.S., Erb, T.O., & Scales, P.C. (1995). Avision of excellence: Organizing principles for middle grades teacher prepa-ration. Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association.

McEwin, C. K., Dickinson, T. S., & Jenkins, D. (1996). America'smiddle schools: Practices and programsA 25 year perspective. Colum-bus, OH: National Middle School Association.

Melton, G.E. (1984). The junior high school: Successes and failures.In J.H. Lounsbury (Ed.), Perspectives: Middle school education, 1964-1984(pp.5-13). Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association.

National Center for Education Statistics (1995). Digest of educationstatistics: Common core data. Washington, DC: Department of EducationStatistics.

National Middle School Association. (1995). This we believe: Devel-opmentally responsive middle level schools. Columbus, OH: Author.

Oakes, J., Serna, I., & Guiton, G. (1996). Introduction. Research inMiddle Level Education Quarterly, 20 (1), 1-10.

Romano, L.G., and Georgiady, N.P. (1994). Building an effectivemiddle school. Madison, WI: WCB Brown & Benchmark.

Scales, P. C., & McEwin, C. K. (1994). Growing pains: The makingof America's middle school teachers. Columbus, OH: National MiddleSchool Association.

2 8293 7


Swaim, J.H., & Stefanich, G.P. (1996). Meeting the standards: Im-proving middle level teacher education. Columbus, OH: National MiddleSchool Association.

Valentine, J. W., Clark, D., Irvin, J., Keefe, J., & Melton, G. (1993).Leadership in middle level education,Volume I: A national survey of middlelevel leaders and schools. Reston, VA: National Association of SecondarySchool Principals.

Valentine, J. W., Clark, D. C., Nickerson, N. C., & Keefe, J. W. (1981).The middle level principalshi p: A survey of middle level principals andprograms. Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Princi-pals.

VanZant, L.M., & Totten, S. (1995). The current status of middle leveleducation research: A critical review. Research in Middle Level Education,18 (3), 1-25.

2 8 8 294

Susan B. Trimble

Components of Effective Teams

Throughout the literature about restructuring schools are referencesto the use of teams (Maeroff, 1993) and teacher collaboration(Lieberman, 1990; Little, 1982). The increasing use and variety of

educational teams stretch from interdisciplinary teacher teams to school-based improvement/advisory or faculty teams and at district levels con-sortiums connecting schools and districts. Little work, however, as beendone in the area of educational team effectiveness, mainly due to the dif-ficulty of studying groups outside of the laboratory setting and the com-plexity of team work. We do, however, know key components of effectivegroup work from research in sociology, business, and psychology fromthe 1950s to the present. These key components provide a framework fororganizing what we know about interdisciplinary teams at the middle level.

EJ Section I: Effective Teams in General CI

Several themes of effective groups/teams emerge across non-educationdisciplines. From group/team analysis in the literature and from business,psychology, and sociology, there is consensus that group performance andorganizational phenomenon can be described in terms of four factors: task,people, process, and interactions with the environment (Morgan, 1986).

Factor 1: Effective teams accomplish their tasks in a superiorfashion. Common sense argues that successful sports teams win theirmatches. Although it seems obvious to point out such teams are consid-ered effective because they accomplish their purpose more efficiently in

295

28 9


terms of process or more effectively in terms of outputs, the observationfocuses attention on the central purpose of each team. Effective teams linkpurpose and performance.

Factor 2: Effective teams satisfy the human needs of the partici-pants. The human dimensions of teams may be most evident in dysfunc-tional groups. By contrast, effective teams appear free of problematic rela-tionships (Napier & Gershenfeld, 1993). Team members are secure psy-chosocially and socially, freely express feelings and ideas, and will-ingly grapple with the team's work. These feelings generate connectednesswith other team members and result in heightened group experience andshared meaning (Serge, 1990).

Factor 3: Effective teams develop suitable procedures and skillsfor being productive while sustaining involvement and energy. Mem-bers of effective teams exhibit group-orientated behaviors, resulting in co-operation, commitment, and participation of team members. Team mem-bers also exhibit flexibility to adjust to new developments and to each other'spersonalities and talents. They easily change roles and can assume leader-ship responsibilities when needed. Other skills include decision-making,formulating group goals, determining strategies to provide service to theclients, and networking with experts (Peters, 1993). One can correctly ar-gue that a team member's personal skills coupled with his/her value sys-tem influences the development of any team's procedures for group work.

Factor 4: Effective teams maintain interactions with the environ-ments. Effective teams are responsive to changes in the environment(Conner, 1992; Peters, 1993) in two fundamental ways that may appearcontradictory, but which, in reality, pivot on the team's ability to evaluatethe impact of an event on the team's functioning. In certain instances, ef-fective teams filter out elements from the environment that distract theirfocus from performance. In other cases, they adapt quickly to changes inresources, demographics, market demands, societal interests, and legal de-cisions. Overall, they know the necessity of maintaining open communica-tion with people outside the team while tapping resources.

2'9 0 296

COMPONENTS OF EFFECTIVE TEAMS

D Section II: Effective Interdisciplinary Teams D

Empirical data for research related to teaming began with the ten studiesassociated with the Pontoon Transitional Design (Clark and Clark 1992).By the 1990s, a growing research base about teaming was emerging (Irvin& Arhar, 1995; Trimble & Irvin, 1996) with the findings providing guide-lines for creating and sustaining effective teams (Trimble & Miller, 1996).For middle school practitioners, three comprehensive teaming handbooksaddress implementation of teaming, team functioning, and maintenance:Merenbloom's (1991, 3rd ed.) The Team Process and Erb and Doda's (1989)Team Organization: Promise, Practices and Possibilities have been avail-able for several years. The most comprehensive work about middle schoolteaming is Dickinson and Erb's (1997) book We Gain More ThanWe Give:Teaming In Middle Schools. The text is a compilation of team stories froma variety of perspectives (students, teachers, administrators, rural schools,mature, and new teams) and a variety of knowledge bases (historical, orga-nizational, research, and sports).

Using the key components of successful teams gleaned from theseresearch studies and publications, what we know about successful interdis-ciplinary teams can be grouped by the four factors of effective groups/teams in general.

Factor 1: Effective interdisciplinary teams accomplish their tasksin a superior fashion. Interdisciplinary team tasks are divided into thethree main areas: (1) teaching, (2) advising, and (3) managing the logisticsof record-keeping, scheduling, and grouping students. We know that effec-tive teams accomplish their purposes with a variety of skills and strategiesdespite the barriers of additional responsibilities, time restraints, and in-conveniences that seem to hinder other teams performance.

In the area of teaching, teachers are experts in their subject area; theydesign and implement thematic units and integrated studies; they use avariety of grouping arrangements including heterogeneous groups of stu-dents both within the classroom as cooperative learning groups and amongclasses and, in some cases, between grade levels. Many teams use flexiblescheduling for rearranging time to match and support learning activities.Effective teams coordinate activities with exploratory teachers, incorpo-rate service and civic programs, and use community resources (Stevenson& Carr, 1993). Assessment combines holistic measures such as portfolioassessment and advisory time for conferences and student peer reviews,with careful attention to record-keeping of student progress.

297 291


Effective teams manage other team responsibilities efficiently to al-low time for development of thematic learning and integrated studies. Un-fortunately, the task of managing students, their records, placement, andspecial education students needs can dominate team meeting time and dis-cussion (Cooper-Straw, 1993; McQuaide, 1992). Effective teams establishprocedures to overcome these pressures. They may delegate among them-selves the responsibilities and chores associated with discipline, studentassignments, scheduling, and supervision of students in the halls, bus ar-eas, and around the school. They usually develop a systematic method ofrecord-keeping of parent and student forms, attendance and disciplinaryreferrals, curriculum manuals, textbook orders, schedules, and other perti-nent information.

In the area of advising, many teams use advisory time, project time,field trips, and sports events for strengthening student ties to each otherand to teachers, conduct face-to-face parent conferences, coordinate testdays and homework assignments. Goals for integrated study in the middlegrades offered by Stevenson and Carr (1993) integrate two tasks of teamsand may provide a framework for reflective assessment by team membersand researchers in these areas. The goals are (1) students will grow moreconfident, (2) students will work together cooperatively, (3) students willdevelop social-ethical consciousness, (4) students will think, think, andthink.

The integration of advising and teaching elements of team function-ing is exemplified in the activities of an eighth grade two-person team atShoreham-Wading River Middle School as described by Burkhardt (1997).For example, expectations for the team's behavior and attitude are termedThe Distinctions and are frequently discussed and taken seriously; the In-quiry Project targets students producing a researched individual magazineof a topic that integrates math, science, foreign language, English and so-cial studies plus the writing process; the three day trip to the Pocono Envi-ronmental Education Center complete with canoeing, square dancing, andsunrise hikes provides the setting for teaming bonding.

Factor 2: Effective teams satisfy the human needs of the partici-pants.

Effective teams interact easily, professionally, and socially on the job.Members of nominated high performing teams in a study of team function-ing commented, "we get along great!" "We consider ourselves like a fam-ily," and "Not only are we co-workers, but good friends, too! We love team-ing. We can't imagine ever working alone again" (Trimble, 1995, p. 178).

292 298


The personal needs and preferences of team teachers are reinforcedand successfully interact with those of other teachers on successful teams.George & Stevenson (1988) surveyed 154 middle school principals fortheir perceptions of highly effective interdisciplinary teams. They distilledcharacteristics of the "best" teams in the "best" schools: team teachers'personal characteristics of noncompetitiveness, high "work ethic," and ex-pertise in their subject areas; commitment to students' success, attention torecord-keeping of their progress; and attitudes toward teammates of "di-verse but united," combined with a spirit of cooperation. Effective teamsare those where the personal characteristics and values of the teachers arealigned with the purposes of teams.

George and Alexander (1993) touched upon the essence of teams cen-tered around people when they wrote, "Educators, like corporate manag-ers, must find ways to organize relatively large institutions so that authen-tic person-centered communities exist within them" (p. 73). When teamsbecome "real" teams, they supply the professional satisfaction and oppor-tunities for professional growth for teachers and, simultaneously help tobuild teams that meet student needs more effectively (Johnston, Markle, &Arhar, 1988).

Factor 3: Effective teams develop suitable procedures and skillsfor being productive while sustaining involvement and energy. Effec-tive teams have passed through the beginning stages of group developmentof "forming," "storming," and "norming" (Tuckman, 1965) and throughthe first two phases George (1982) proposed as "organization" and "com-munity." Within these stages, team teachers grow to understand, value, andintegrate the personalities and styles of one another. Personality issues donot dominate in effective teams because the team has moved into focusingon students or projects, while using group processes that sustain relation-ships and communication.

Specific team procedures to maintain communication and facilitatethe work of the team include (1) regular team meetings with all team mem-bers present and on time, guided by an informal or formal agenda, (2) theparticipation of all team members in decision-making process, (3) goal-setting for the school year, (4) the use of team meeting time to concentrateon instructional planning and evaluation.

Factor 4: Effective teams interact with their environment accord-ing to their purposes. Effective teams tap the rich array of resources withintheir own schools and communities. They may create design integrated

299 Z9


studies around local rivers or mountains (Stevenson & Carr, 1993), initiatepartnerships with businesses, offer open-houses for parents and "munchies-for-mothers," do presentations at workshops and conferences, write articlesfor newsletters, or become involved in action research with universities.George and Stevenson (1989) called it "outreach" in their article about thebest teams in the best schools.

Continual and successful adjustments to changing youth culture canstem from team members keeping a pulse on student interests, communityevents, and trends in the media. The current growth of gang-related behav-iors, the offering of beepers by Pepsi Company ("Take Note," 1996), ringsin noses and eyebrows, and the drooping pants fashion can result in addi-tional stresses for some teachers and administrators. Understanding theunderlying causes and being prepared through dialogue of the issues and insome cases, staff development, increase the ability of team members tointeract with students. Effective teams keep current.

Cited as the main determinant of the implementation of school re-form, principals have a major effect on team functioning, although initialinvestigations of principal/team relations show less attachment by nomi-nated high-performing teams to principals than nominated average per-forming teams (Trimble, 1995). A principal's participatory leadership styleincreases the sense of ownership, boosts moral and self-esteem, and savestime after decision making (Spindler and George, 1984). In answer to thequestion, "What principal behaviors increase team performance?" Spindler(1994) described the following behaviors: modeling shared decision mak-ing, providing training, clearly defining areas of responsibilities for teamsand honoring team decisions in those areas, grooming future team leaders,providing resources, receiving input from teams through describing schoolproblems to teams (not solutions) and asking for input, and adjusting his/her style of leadership to the team's level of development. Principals helpto develop and sustain effective teams (Trimble & Miller, 1996).

All of us have worked on teams and known the work of teams is noteasy. On the other hand, we know the benefits of effective teams and aremaking headway in understanding their components. As teams are posi-tioned between the students and teachers on one hand and the larger orga-nization on the other, our efforts to build effective teams will be richlyrewarded in both contexts. ID

294300


ReferencesArhar, J. M., & Irvin, J. L. (1995). Interdisciplinary team organization: A

growing research base. Middle School Journal, 26 (5), 65-67

Burkhardt, R. (1997). Teaming: Sharing the experience. In T. S. Dickinsonand T. 0. Erb (Eds.), We gain more than we give: Teaming in middle schools (pp.

163-184). Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association..

Clark, S. N., & Clark, D. C. (1992). The Pontoon Transitional Design: Amissing link in the research on interdisciplinary teaming. Research in Middle Level

Education, 15 (2), 57-81.

Conner, D. R. (1992). Managing at the speed of change. New York: Villard

Books.

Cooper-Shaw, C. (1993). A content analysis of teacher talk during middleschool team meetings. Research in Middle Level Education, 17 (1), 27-45.

Dickinson, T. S., & Erb, T. 0. (1997) We gain more than we give: Teaming in

middle schools. Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association

Erb, T. 0., & Doda, N. (1989). Team organization: Promise, practices andpossibilities. Washington, DC: National Education Association.

George, P. S., & Stevenson, C. (1989). Highly effective interdisciplinaryteams: Perceptions of exemplary middle school principals. (ERIC ReproductionService No. ED 303 866).

George, P. S. (1982). Interdisciplinary team organization. Middle SchoolJournal, 13 (3), 10-13.

George, P. S., & Alexander, W. M. (1993). The exemplary middle school(2nd ed.). New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.

Goodman, P. S., & Associates (1986). Designing effective work groups. San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Johnston, J. H., Markle, G. C., & Arhar, J. M. (1988). Cooperation, collabo-

ration, and the professional development of teachers. Middle School Journal, 19(3), 28-32.

Lieberman, A. (Ed.). (1990). Schools as collaborative cultures: Creating the

future now. New York: The Falmer Press, 325-340.

Little, J. W. (1982). Norms of collegiability and experimentation: Workplace

conditions of school success. American Educational Research Journal, 19 (3),325-340.

Lytle, J. H. (1996). The inquiring manager: Developing new leadership struc-

tures to support reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 77 (10), 664-670.Maeroff, G. I. (1993). Building teams to rebuild schools. Phi Delta Kappan,

74 (7), 512-519.

McQuaide, J. (1992). Implementation of team planning time. Research inMiddle Level Education, 17 (2), 27-45.

301 295


Merenbloom, E. Y. (1991). The team process in the middle school: A hand-book for teachers (2nd ed.). Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association.

Morgan, G. (1986). Images of organizations. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Napier, R. W., & Gershenfeld, M. K. (1993). Groups: Theory and experi-ence. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Peters,T. (1992). Liberation management. New York: Fawcett Columbine.

Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learn-ing organization. New York: Doubleday Currency.

Spindler, J. P. (1994). Personal communication. Atlanta, GA.

Spindler, J. P., & George, P.S. (1984). Participatory leadership in the middle

school. The Clearing House, 57 (7), 293-295.

Stevenson, C., & Carr, J. F. (Eds.). (1993). Integrated studies in the middle

grades: _'Dancing through walls.' New York: Teachers College Press, ColumbiaUniversity.

Take note. (1996, May 29). Education Week, p. 3.

Trimble, S. B., & Miller, J. W. (1996). Creating, invigorating, and sustaining

effective teams. NASSP Bulletin, 80 (584).

Trimble, S. B. (1995). A theoretical framework for the analysis of high per-

forming interdisciplinary team functioning in selected middle schools. Unpublished

doctoral dissertation, Florida State University, Tallahassee.

Trimble, S. B., & Irvin, J. L. (1996). Emerging from the mists: The field ofteaming. Middle School Journal, 27 (5), 53-56.

Tuckman, B. W. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psycho-logical Bulletin, 63 (6), 384-399.

296302

Nancy B. Mize Ile and Emmett Mullins

Transition Into and Out of Middle School

Transition or change from one school to another is an exciting yetapprehensive process, particularly when the transition is from el-ementary to middle school or from middle to high school. Though

a student's social status may increase with each of these normative schoolchanges, within the school context his or her status diminishes: The "topdogs" at the end of elementary and middle schools become the studentswith the least status in their new school. Young adolescents entering middleschool express concern about failure, drugs, giving class presentations, beingsent to an administrator's office, being picked on, unkind teachers, andkeeping up with assignments. Similarly, young adolescents entering highschool are concerned about being picked on and teased by older students,having harder work, making lower grades, and getting lost in a larger, un-familiar school (Maute, 1991; Mize lle, 1995; Phelan, Yu, & Davidson, 1994;Wells, 1996).

Most middle level educators recognize these student concerns andseek to ease the transition of their incoming and outgoing students to theirnew school. According to Epstein and Mac Iver's (1990) report of the sur-vey, Education in the Middle Grades, the average middle level school usedfour to five practices to bridge young adolescents' transition into middleschool and three to four (significantly fewer) practices to ease their stu-dents' transition into high school. Furthermore, those schools that reportedthe most extensive transition programs were 6-7-8 and 7-8 schools. Themost commonly used practices at both levels included students' visitingtheir new school and administrators and counselors from both schools meet-ing together to discuss their respective programs. The challenge remains,

303

297


however, for middle grades educators to do more because students con-tinue to experience difficulty in transition (e.g., Barone, Aguirre-Deandreis,& Trickett, 1991; Hertzog, Morgan, Diamond, & Walker, 1996) and be-cause "school transition programs that use numerous and diverse articula-tion activities were seen to help students succeed in their first year follow-ing a school transition," (Mac Iver, 1990, p. 464). Various ways to meet thischallenge are outlined in the remainder of this chapter.

Li Transition Into Middle School ID

Among the first to document possible problems at transition were Simmons,Rosenberg, and Rosenberg (1973). In their cross-sectional study of stu-dents in grades three through twelve, the researchers noted that at the tran-sition to a middle level school, students experienced significant declines inseveral areas of self-image. Among the disturbances to self-image were anincreased level of self-consciousness, unstable self-image, a decline in glo-bal self-esteem, and a reduced sense that others held positive opinions ofthem. The researchers noted that the disturbances cited were linked to thechange in grade level more than age. Thus, the physiological effects ofpuberty were determined to be less influential in the decline than gradelevel. Of particular significance was that the disturbances seemed to con-tinue into later adolescence and were not simply the short-term effects ofchanging schools.

Simmons, Burgeson, Carlton-Ford, and Blyth (1987) examined theimpact of multiple life changes and found that children experiencing manychanges in coincidence were at a greater risk of failing to cope successfullywith the changes. Making the transition to a new school level was one ofthe major stressors indicated for children along with onset of puberty, earlydating, geographic mobility, and changes in parents' marital status. Althoughboys and girls suffered loss of self-esteem when multiple changes occurred,girls seemed to be particularly vulnerable and had a more difficult timecoping as the number of life changes increased.

Eccles and Midgley (1989) suggested that declines in motivation andbehavior they documented in students at transition resulted from a mis-match between the psychological needs of young adolescents and the char-acteristics of the social environment of the school. These researchers as-serted that structures and conditions in place in middle level schools facili-tated the problems experienced by students. Such structures and conditionsincluded increases in: student population, departmentalization, ability group-

304

298,

TRANSMON MD AND OUT OF MIDDLE SCHOOL

ing, competitive motivational strategies, grading stringency, and teachercontrol. Students may at the same time experience decreases in: close rela-tionships with teachers, time to develop a peer network, opportunities tomake decisions, and teachers ' sense of their own effectiveness.

More recently, researchers have begun to suggest that the disturbancesstudents face at transition are the result of both multiple life changes andthe social context that the students are entering (Eccles, Lord, & Midgley,1991). These researchers documented declines in academic performance,intrinsic motivation, and school attachment after the transition to a middlelevel school. For example, at a time when students are experiencing a height-ened sense of self-focus, middle level teachers often emphasize competi-tion and comparisons between students. Middle level students often havedecreased opportunities for decision making at a time when they cognitivelyand emotionally desire more control. Entering larger middle level schoolstends to disrupt students' social networks at a time when peer relationshipsare of particular importance. Although higher levels of cognitive ability areemerging in young adolescents, middle level teachers often use lower levelstrategies. Finally, at a time when positive adult relationships may be espe-cially needed, schools do not often plan for or facilitate these relationships.

Fenzel (1989) and Mullins (1997) examined students ' transition fromelementary to middle school. In both studies, the deleterious effects onstudents ' self-perceptions identified in other studies seemed mitigated bythe schools ' structures. Specifically, both studies were conducted in middleschools where the sixth graders were on interdisciplinary teams and otheraspects of a "middle school philosophy" were implemented.

Li What Can Middle School Educators Do to Ease CIStudents' Transition into Middle School?

Middle school educators may have little or no control over the previouslycited major life changes that are potentially experienced by their incomingstudents, but they do have control over the environment created within theschool. They can facilitate smooth transition into middle school. Strategiesto promote young adolescents ' successful transition into middle school canbe broken down into two categories: easily implemented events and pro-grams and larger and possibly more formidable changes in curriculum andinstruction. The degree of difficulty in implementing programs will likelydepend on the status of the individual schools involved. Some schools al-ready have many developmentally attentive programs in place for young

3052 9.9


adolescents while others may require extensive restructuring.The first task to undertake to help students make successful school

transitions is to organize articulation and planning programs that involvenot only administrators and counselors from the various schools, but teach-ers as well. In his studies of over 1,000 classrooms, Good lad (1984) con-cluded that elementary schools and post-elementary schools existed inde-pendently from each other, and continuity from one to another was notassured. Even schools in close proximity to one another "might as wellhave been in different towns, given the lack of communication and articu-lation between them" (Good lad, 1984, p. 304). Gaps and oveilaps in in-struction often occur without a well-articulated curriculum plan. How canstudents be expected to be prepared for entry into each grade level if theirteachers have had little or no communication or knowledge about the gradelevels before and after their own? Many authors have suggested "shadowdays" in which students from one school "shadow" another student fromtheir new school. In theory, this gives rising middle schoolers an opportu-nity to feel comfortable with such things as changing classes, instruction,exploratories, and electives with which they may not be familiar. We pro-pose that such "shadow" experiences could be valuable for teachers, aswell. This experience would allow teachers at both the "exit" and "entry"level grades to gain a better understanding of the environment where stu-dents have been and where they are going. Debriefing opportunities wouldallow educators to discuss their experiences and focus on ways that in-structional programs and academic expectations could be better aligned.Some districts (Weldy, 1991) have adopted the concept of articulation com-mittees to study all aspects of students' transition. Shadow experiences foreducators might be a critical factor in the success of such committees.

Epstein and Mac Iver (1990) advocated the adoption of numerousand varied transition programs to help alleviate the short-term stress ofschool transition. As previously mentioned, a program which allows stu-dents from one level to visit the next can be much more powerful than asimple visitation or assembly. By participating in actual classes, studentsare able to see what goes on in the school firsthand and come away with theunderstanding that they will be able to do what is expected of them (Epstein& Mac Iver, 1990).

While parents often feel left out and unwanted at middle schools,they should not. Mac Iver (1990) reported that parents that were involvedin transition programs were more likely to become active participants inthe school and the child's education. Middle school articulation or transi-tion committees should challenge themselves to find ways to involve par-

306

300

TRANSMON INTO AND OUT OF MIDDLE SCHOOL

ents in their child's school from the beginning. Multiple practices may beneeded for a successful strategy to emerge.

Finally, middle schools should pay particular attention to studentswho may be experiencing multiple major life stressors during the transi-tion phase. As a part of some articulation plans, counselors complete formsfor students who are at risk for problems at transition to send to the counse-lors at the next level. Counselors at the new school then provide studentsindividual or small group counseling as needed. A contrasting strategy, andone that demonstrates the need for elementary and middle school educa-tors to work together to facilitate students' transition, is to provide a copingskills curriculum for all students in the year before transition. Snow,Gilchrist, Schilling, Schinke, and Kelso (1986), in support of this strategy,argue that skills for promoting young adolescents' positive mental healthare better effected in the year prior to transition than in the year after tran-sition.

LI Transition Out of Middle School LI

Larger, more formal and impersonal; a greater variety of teachers and peers;more curriculum choices and extracurricular activities; competitive andgrade-oriented this is the high school environment most young adoles-cents experience as they make the transition from middle school to highschool (Eccles, Midgley, & Adler, 1984). Faced with this transition, youngadolescents look forward to more freedom, more choice, the opportunity toparticipate in more extracurricular activities, and the opportunity to de-velop friendships; but they also admit to being "nervous" and "scared"about the older students, a larger, unfamiliar school, and harder work(Mize lle, 1995; Wells, 1996).

Research indicates that as young adolescents make the transition intohigh school many experience a decline in grades and attendance (Barone etal., 1991; Reyes, Gil lock, & Kobus, 1994); they view themselves morenegatively and experience an increased need for friendships (Hertzog et al.,1996); and by the end of tenth grade, as many as six percent drop out ofschool (Owings & Peng, 1992). For middle school students including thosewho have been labeled "gifted" or "high-achieving" the transition into highschool can be an unpleasant experience (Mizelle, 1995; Phelan et al., 1994;Wells, 1996)).

307 301


I:I What Can Middle School Educators Do to LiEase Students"rransition into High School?

Facilitating young adolescents' transition from middle school to high schoolseems to require programs that specifically address the transition period(Felner, Ginter, & Primavera, 1982; Hertzog et al., 1996; Mac Iver, 1990)as well as middle school programs that challenge and support students(Belcher & Hat ley, 1994; Mac Iver & Epstein, 1991; Mize Ile, 1995). MacIver (1990) found that when middle school students experienced a highschool transition program with several diverse articulation activities, fewerstudents were retained in the transition grade. Furthermore, middle schoolprincipals indicated that they expected fewer of their students to dropoutbefore graduation when the school provided supportive advisory groupactivities or responsive remediation programs (Mac Iver & Epstein, 1991).When asked at the end of eighth grade and then again in ninth grade "whattheir middle school teachers could have done to help them get ready forhigh school," one group of young adolescents responded that teachers shouldhave told them more about high school and that during middle school teach-ers should have given them more challenging work and taught them moreabout how to learn on their own (Mize Ile, 1995).

U Transition-specific programAccording to Mac Iver (1990), a high school transition program in-

cludes a variety of activities that (a) provide students and parents with in-formation about the new school, (b) provide students with social supportduring the transition, and (c) bring middle school and high school person-nel together to learn about one another's curriculum and requirements.Designing and implementing appropriate activities for a particular highschool transition program involves middle school and high school educa-tors working together. It is not the sole responsibility of the middle schoolor the high school educators but the mutual responsibility of the middleschool and high school administrators, counselors, and teachers involved.Ultimately, we believe, it includes input from students and parents at bothlevels.

Middle school students want to know what high school is going to belike (Mize Ile, 1995) and they and their parents need to know about andunderstand high school programs and procedures (Mac Iver, 1990; Phelanet al., 1994; Sansone & Baker, 1990). "Will I really have classes all overthe building?" "What happens if I don't make it to class on time?" "What isa vocational class?" "Should I take College Prep Algebra I or General Al-

308

302

TRANSITION IN70 AND OUT OF MIDDLE SCHOOL

gebra I?" " How should I know?" and "What can I do if I get in the wrongclass?" Providing students and parents the answer to these and many otherquestions should be a central component of a high school transition pro-gram. In particular, parents need to understand and be actively involved inthe decisions their eighth graders are asked to make about classes they willtake in ninth grade (Baker & Stevenson, 1986; Paulson, 1994). Parentsneed to understand students' options and the long-term effects of the coursedecisions.

Some of the ways students can learn about high school include visit-ing the high school in the spring, perhaps to "shadow" a high school stu-dent; attending a presentation by a high school student; visiting the highschool in the fall for schedule information; attending a fall orientation as-sembly; and discussing high school regulations and procedures with eighthgrade teachers. As middle school educators, we need to be able to discussand answer questions about high school; we also need to encourage stu-dents to participate in transition activities.

When parents are involved in students' transition to high school, theytend to stay involved in their child's school experiences (Mac Iver, 1990).When parents are involved in their child's school experiences, students alsohave higher achievement in high school (Paulson, 1994) and are less likelyto drop out of school (Horn & West, 1992). Parents may be invited to par-ticipate in conferences with their child and the high school counselor todiscuss course work and schedules; they may be invited to visit the highschool with their child in the spring and/or in the fall. At the middle school,our responsibility is to inform parents about these opportunities and to en-courage them to participate. Perhaps, more importantly, our responsibilityis to work to keep parents involved in their child's education and schoolactivities during the middle school years so that they are comfortable "com-ing to school" and confident that their involvement makes a difference intheir child's academic success.

At a time when friendships and social interaction are particularly im-portant for young adolescents, the normative transition into high schooloften serves to disrupt friendship networks. It is important for a high schooltransition program to include activities that will provide incoming studentssocial support, activities that give students the opportunity to get to knowand develop positive relationships with older students and other incomingstudents (Hertzog et al., 1996; Mac Iver, 1990). A "Big Sister/Brother"Program, a spring social event for current and incoming high school stu-dents, writing programs where eighth and ninth graders correspond witheach other (Rosa & Vowels, 1988; Sportsman, 1987), and Freshmen Aware-

309

303


ness Groups where students spend time discussing common problems (Deck& Saddler, 1983) are just a few ways that transition programs can providestudents social support.

Underlying a successful high school transition program are activitiesthat bring middle school and high school administrators, counselors, andteachers together to learn about the programs, courses, and requirementsof their respective schools (George, Stevenson, Thomason, & Beane, 1992;Hertzog et al., 1996; Mac Iver, 1990). Activities that create a mutual under-standing of curriculum requirements at both levels and of the young ado-lescent learner will enable middle school educators to better prepare stu-dents for high school and will help educators at both levels to develop ahigh school transition program to meet the particular needs of their stu-dents. In addition to the more typical committee or team meetings withrepresentatives from each level, these activities may include K-12 curricu-lum planning meetings, and teacher and/or administrator visitations, ob-servations, and teaching exchanges that involve both middle and high schooleducators.

CI Transition-support programProviding young adolescents with activities that relate directly to their

transition into high school certainly is important. It seems also that provid-ing young adolescents with a challenging and supportive middle schoolexperience is an important factor in their making a successful transitioninto high school (Belcher & Hat ley, 1994; Bry & George, 1980; Mize lle,1995). For example, Mize lle (1995) found that students (the Delta students)who stayed together with the same teachers through sixth, seventh, andeighth grade and experienced more hands-on, life-related learning activi-ties, integrated instruction, and cooperative learning groups (the DeltaProject) were more successful in their transition to high school than werestudents (the Non-Delta students) from the same school who had a moretraditional middle school experience. In ninth grade, the Delta students hadhigher language arts, science, and social science grades and were morelikely to enroll in higher level mathematics courses than the Non-Deltastudents. More importantly, the Delta students said that being involved inthe Delta Project helped them make the transition into high school becauseit helped them feel more confident about learning and it helped them learnhow to get along with their peers.

At the same time, the Delta and Non-Delta students recognized thatthey were stressed about their grades because the high school teachers ex-pected them to learn more and faster and to do more learning on their own.

310

304

TRANSITION INK) AND OUT OF MIDDLE SCHOOL

In reflection, these young adolescents indicated that their middle schoolprogram would have eased their transition into high school if it had pro-vided them with an even more challenging curriculum and if teachers hadheld students more responsible for their learning and had taught them morestrategies for learning on their own.

D Conclusion IJ

At first glance, it may seem we are placing sole responsibility for youngadolescents' successful transitions into and out of middle school on middleschool educators; we are not. Rather, we believe middle school teachers,administrators, and counselors should be actively involved, along with theirelementary and high school counterparts, in planning specific transitionactivities for their students. Additionally, they should be aware that thestructure of their middle school program and curriculum may have along-term influence on their students' success beyond the point of transi-tion. In particular, middle school educators need to seek ways to involvefamilies in their student's education and to challenge all young adolescentsto be thinking, responsible students. El

ReferencesBaker, D. P., & Stevenson, D. L. (1986). Mothers' strategies for children's

school achievement: Managing the transition to high school. Sociology of Educa-

tion, 59 (3), 156-166.Barone, C., Aguirre-Deandreis, A. I., Trickett, E. J. (1991). Mean-ends prob-

lem-solving skills, life stress, and social support as mediators of adjustment in the

normative transition to high school. American Journal of Community Psychology,

19 (2), 207-225.Belcher, D. C., & Hatley, R. V. (1994). A dropout prediction model that

highlights middle level variables. Research in Middle Level Education, 18 (1), 67-

78.

Bry, B. H., & George, F. E. (1980). The preventive effects of early interven-

tion on the attendance and grades of urban adolescents. Professional Psychology,11

(2), 252-260.Deck, M. D., & Saddler, D. L. (1983). Freshmen awareness groups: A viable

option for high school counselors. The School Counselor, 30 (5), 392-397.

Eccles, J. S., Lord, S., & Midgley, C. (1991). What are we doing to earlyadolescents? The impact of educational contexts on early adolescents. American

Journal of Education, 99 (4), 521-543.

311 3 Q5


Eccles, J. S., & Midgley, C. (1989). Stage/environment fit: Developmentally

appropriate classrooms for early adolescents. In C. Ames & R. Ames (Eds.), Re-search on motivation in education: Goals and cognitions (Vol, 3, pp. 139-186).New York: Academic Press.

Eccles (Parsons), J., Midgley, C., & Adler, T. F. (1984). Grade-related changes

in the school environment: Effects on achievement motivation. In J. G. Nicholls(Ed.), Advances in motivation and achievement (Vol. 3, pp. 283-331). Greenwich,CT: JAI Press.


Felner, R. D., Ginter, M., & Primavera, J. (1982). Primary prevention during

school transitions: Social support and environmental structure. American Journal

of Community Psychology, 10 (3), 277-290.

Fenzel, L. M. (1989). Role strains and the transition to middle school: Lon-

gitudinal trends and sex differences. Journal of Early Adolescence, 9 (3), 211-226.

George, P. S., Stevenson, C., Thomason, J., & Beane, J. (1992). The middleschool and beyond. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curricu-lum Development.

Goodlad, J. I. (1984). A place called school. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Hertzog, C. J., Morgan, P. L., Diamond, P. A., & Walker, M. J. (1996). Tran-

sition to high school: A look at student perceptions. Becoming, 7 (2), 6-8.

Horn, L., & West J. (1992). National education, longitudinal study of 1988:A profile of parents of eighth graders. Washington, DC: U.S. Government PrintingOffice.

Mac Iver, D. J. (1990). Meeting the needs of young adolescents: Advisory

groups, interdisciplinary teaching teams, and school transition programs. Phi DeltaKappan, 71 (6), 458-464.

Mac Iver, D. J,. & Epstein, J. L. (1991). Responsive practices in the middle

grades: Teacher teams, advisory groups, remedial instruction, and school transi-tion programs. American Journal of Education, 99 (4), 587-622.

Maute, J. K. (1991). Transition concerns of eighth-grade students in six Illi-

nois schools as they prepare for high school. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,National-Louis University, Evanston, IL.

Mizelle, N. B. (1995, April). Transition from middle school into high school:

The student perspective. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the AmericanEducational Research Association, San Francisco.

Mullins, E. R. (1997). Changes in young adolescents' self-perceptions across

the transition from elementary to middle school. Unpublished doctoral disserta-tion, University of Georgia, Athens.

312

306

TRANSITION INTO AND OUT OF MIDDLE SCHOOL

Owings, J., & Peng, S. (1992). Transitions experienced by 1988 eighth grad-

ers. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Re-search and Improvement.

Paulson, S. E. (1994). Relations of parenting style and parental involvement

with ninth-grade students' achievement. Journal of Early Adolescence, 14 (2), 250-

267.

Phelan, P., Yu, H. C., & Davidson, A. L. (1994). Navigating the psychosocial

pressures of adolescence: The voices and experiences of high school youth. Ameri-

can Educational Research Journal, 31 (2), 415-447.Reyes, 0., Gillock, K., & Kobus, K. (1994). A longitudinal study of school

adjustment in urban, minority adolescents: Effects of a high school transition pro-

gram. American Journal of Community Psychology, 22 (3), 341-369.

Rosa, A., & Vowels, M. (1988). Helping 8th graders make a "smooth move."

Educational Leadership, 47 (6), 58.Sansone, J., & Baker, J. (1990). Ninth grade for students at risk for dropping

out of high school. The High School Journal, 73_(3), 218-231.

Simmons, R. G., Burgeson, R., Carlton-Ford, S., & Blyth, D. (1987). Theimpact of cumulative change in early adolescence. Child Development, 58 (5),1220-1234.

Simmons, R. G., Rosenberg, F., & Rosenberg, M. (1973). Disturbance in the

self-image at adolescence. American Sociological Review, 38 (5),553-568.

Snow, W. H., Gilchrist, L., Schilling, R. F., Schinke, S. P., & Kelso, C. (1986).

Preparing students for the junior high school. Journal of Early Adolescence, 6 (2),

127-137.

Sportsman, S. J. (1987). What worries kids about the next level. Middle School

Journal, 18 (3), 34-35.Weldy, G. R. (Ed.). (1991). Stronger school transitions improve student

achievement. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University, School of Education.

Wells, M. C. (1996). Literacies lost: When students move from a progressive

middle school to a traditional high school. New York: Teachers College Press.

307313

IIRRRIZRRI212RRRRRI2R1212121242f2

4 WOR f3 _kW .11

TAM D3 2

124271212412RIRRRRIMRRI2M12

Clark

Clark

Valentine

Trimble

Whitaker

Leadership

Sally N. ClarkUniversity of ArizonaTuscon, Arizona

Donald C. ClarkUniversity of ArizonaTuscon, Arizona

Jerry ValentineUniversity of MissouriColumbia, Missouri

Susan B. TrimbleGeorgia Southern UniversityStatesboro, Georgia

Todd WhitakerIndiana State UniversityTerre Haute, Indiana

30 8

Sally N. Clark and Donald C. Clark

Collaborations and Teacher Empowerment:Implications for School Leaders

Collaboration extends the opportunity for making significant deci-sions or for influencing decisions about the school and its pro-grams to the various school stakeholder groups. While in middle

level schools collaboration takes place in a variety of ways (e.g. teachingteams, advisory groups, task forces, partnerships), the focus of this chapterwill be on collaborative or participatory decision making. This form ofcollaboration is most commonly organized around school/site-based man-agement/leadership teams, organizational development, school improve-ment teams, and quality circles (Clark & Clark, 1996). While the focus ofeach of these collaborative approaches may vary slightly, Carlson (1996)contended that each approach provides a process for teachers to "play asignificant role in identifying needs or problems, generating alternativestrategies, and implementing promising interventions. The key is to recog-nize the legitimacy of various members playing a significant role in en-hancing the quality of life at their school" (p. 267). This recognition throughinclusion in collaborative decision-making groups empowers teachers tobecome actively involved in the life of their schools.

Little doubt exists that American middle level schools have embracedthe concept of collaboration. In the National Association of SecondarySchool Principals' (NASSP) National Survey of Middle Level Leaders andSchools (Valentine, Clark, Irvin, Keefe, & Melton, 1993), 68% of the prin-cipals reported the existence of leadership teams in their schools. In theirstudy of effective middle level schools, George and Shewey (1994) alsofound strong support for shared decision making. Almost three-quarters ofthe respondents agreed that "a shared decision-making model which is for-mal, systematic, and provides authentic collaboration between and among

317 309


teachers, administrators, parents, and students has contributed to the long-term effectiveness of our middle school program" (p. 99). With the strongdegree of support for collaborative decision making in middle level schools,it is instructive to examine the following questions:

1. What are the benefits of collaborative decision making to schools andto classroom instruction?

2. What is nature of teacher involvement in collaborative decision mak-ing?

3. What are the implications of research on collaborative decision mak-ing for school leaders?

Drawing from the current research on collaborative decision making, theremaining part of this chapter will address these three questions.

1:11 Benefits of collaborationThe benefits of collaborative decision making are well documented.

Collaboration, with its emphasis on collaborative planning, collegial rela-tionships, and sense of community provides middle level teachers and ad-ministrators with a viable approach to school restructuring. Research showsthat involvement clearly enhances the ability of the school to respond toproblems and opportunities and increases effectiveness, efficiency, and pro-ductivity (Shedd & Bacharach, 1991). Involvement also leads to better de-cision making, enhanced relationships between teachers and administra-tors, and higher employee satisfaction (Smith & Scott, 1990). In addition,collaboration facilitates better decisions by eliciting more viewpoints andimproves communication by opening more channels. Human resources arealso used more effectively in collaborative environments, and the distancebetween decisions and implementation is reduced (Linde low, Coursen,Massarella, Heynderickz, & Smith, 1989). It is evident from the researchthat collaborative environments increase job satisfaction, help reduce con-flict, reduce stress and burnout, and raise morale and trust for school lead-ers (Shedd & Bacharach, 1991).

Other benefits of teacher and administrator collaboration, as identi-fied by researchers (Little, 1982; Purkey & Smith, 1982; Rosenholtz, 1985;Rosenholtz, 1989; Shedd & Bacharach, 1991; Smith & Scott, 1990) are:

1. Teachers in collaborative schools share ideas about instruction.2. Schools where teachers talk to each other, design their instruction

together, and teach each other have higher achievement scores thanschools where teachers work in isolation.

3. Collegial relationships fostered by collaboration break down barriersbetween departments and among teachers and administrators. Colle-

3 0318

COLLABORATION AND TEACHER EMPOWERMENT

giality also encourages intellectual discourse that leads to consensusand promotes feelings of unity and commonality among the staff.

4. Collaboration supports professional development and contributes toimproved teaching and learning.

5. Collaborative environments are particularly helpful to beginning teach-ers.

6. Teacher participation is critical to the success of any change effort.Smylie (1994) reviewed studies dealing with participative decision

making and found that collaboration increases teacher commitment, satis-faction, and morale. He suggested, however, that these collaborative ef-forts usually have little impact on the way teachers teach. In her study ofschool-based decision making, Hannaway (1993) found very little evidenceof positive change in the classroom. In fact, her analysis suggested thathigh level involvement in school-based management, because of the timeand energy it takes, may actually have detrimental effects on classroominstruction. Elmore (1993) suggested that school/site-based managementclearly threatens established power relationships and that "Debates aboutcentralization and decentralization in American education, then, are mainlydebates about who should have access to and influence over decisions, notabout what the content and practice of teaching and learning should be orhow to change those things" (p. 40).

Some research, however, supports positive classroom effects of col-laboration. For example, teachers who participate in district-level curricu-lar and instructional program decision making reported substantial gains intheir own understanding of student learning and the instructional processesthat influenced the work of their students (Smylie, Brownlee-Conyers, &Crowson 1991). In addition, Smylie (1994) found that school-site collabo-rative decision making "prompted teachers to share ideas and experimentwith different instructional strategies" (p. 140). Strong relationships be-tween participative decision making and systemic curriculum and instruc-tional changes were found in Chicago schools with democratic politics andstrong professional cultures (Bryk, Easton, Kerbow, Rol low, & Sebring,1993).

The research on collaborative decision making suggests that teacherparticipation does positively affect the school. Higher morale and teachersatisfaction, positive school climate, better communication, and increasedinvolvement and empowerment are consistently reported. On the other hand,with a few exceptions, there appears to be little evidence that collaborationbrings about changes in classroom practice.

319 311


ID Teacher involvement in decision makingThe extent to which teachers are empowered to make decisions is an

area that has been examined by several studies. The NASSP Study of Lead-ership in Middle Level Schools (Valentine et al., 1993) investigated thedegree of involvement of leadership teams in decision making. The find-ings do not reflect a high degree of active involvement in decision makingon the part of leadership teams or staff committees. The level of involve-ment was most typically focused on making recommendations or holdingdiscussions. Real power to make decisions was infrequent. When com-pared to data from the NASSP 1981 Study (Valentine, Clark, Nickerson, &Keefe, 1981) the "degree of change in the 12 years and the level of impactof shared decision making in middle level schools across the nation is modestat best" (Valentine et al. 1993, p. 39).

The low degree of participation in collaborative decision making maybe indicative of differing perceptions of teachers and administrators aboutparticipative decision making. In a study conducted by Shedd and Bacharach(1991), 93 percent of the principals queried reported that decision makingin their schools was a collaborative process. Only 32 percent of the teach-ers in these same schools characterized the decision-making process asbeing collaborative. Shedd and Bacharach (1991) attributed the differencesin perception to the principals' belief that giving teachers opportunities toshare opinions was collaborative decision making. Teachers, however, "dis-missed mere consultation, particularly if it involved a handpicked group ofteachers" (p. 141).

Is the low degree of teacher participation in decision making prima-rily an issue of differing perceptions between administrators and princi-pals? Probably not. Other factors may also come into play. For example,principals may be uncomfortable with or unwilling to share decision mak-ing or to give up their consolidated power (Bryk, Easton, Kerbow, Rollow,& Sebring, 1993). Teachers may not be willing to become involved in de-cision making, particularly if they perceive it to be based on external com-pliance models or district, school board, or state mandates (Smylie, 1994).In addition, teachers and administrators may not be willing to or able tofind the time to collaborate (Bird & Little, 1986; Clark & Clark, 1994;Dawson, 1984).

Drawing from their research, Levine and Eubanks (1992) identifiedthe following as major obstacles in implementing site (school)-based man-agement, a comprehensive form of collaborative decision making:

Inadequate time, professional development, and technical assistance.

320

312


Difficulties in stimulating consideration and acceptance of inconve-nient changes.Unresolved issues involving administrative leadership and enhancedpower among other participants.Constraints on teacher participation in decision making.Reluctance of administrators at all levels to give up traditional pre-rogatives.Restrictions imposed by school board, state, and federal regulationsand by contracts with teacher organizations.Bailey (1991) and Carlson (1996) identified additional potential prob-

lems in collaborative decision making. These problems included : (1) changetakes time and teachers are often too busy to spend much time on schooldecision making; (2) collaborative decision making can raise unrealisticexpectations of what can or should be accomplished through collaborativeefforts as many of the problems facing schools lie outside the control ofteachers, parents, and administrators; (3) the uncertainty surrounding schoolsabout the issues of effectiveness and the processes of becoming effectivecreates a climate of ambiguity that makes school decision making a diffi-cult task.

ZI Collaboration: Implications for school leadersThe organization, development, and implementation of successful col-

laboration requires that principals assume a variety of important roles. Theseroles draw heavily from the research and literature on transformationM lead-ership. Burns' notion that "transforming leadership is elevating" and as aresult "leaders and followers raise one another to high levels of motivationand morality" (Rost, 1991, p. 83 ) serves as a foundation for successfulcollaboration. In addition, the following concepts of transformational lead-ership as identified by Louis, Kruse, and Raywid (1996), Louis and Murphy(1994), Leithwood and Steinbach (1995), Sergiovanni (1990), Rost (1991),and others provide the structure critical for bringing about meaningful schoolchange through collaborative decision making.

Leading from the Center (delegating leadership responsibilities; de-veloping collaborative decision-making processes; bringing shared authorityto life)

Enabling and Supporting Teacher Success (helping formulate a sharedvision; cultivating a network of relationships; allocating resources consis-tent with vision; providing information; promoting teacher development)

Managing Reform (ensuring that resources align with goals; bringingteachers into the information loop; managing relationships between schooland community ) 321

313


Extending the School Community (promoting the school; working withthe governing board)

The desirability of the transformational approach to leadership in bring-ing about school change is well documented. The research findings of Halland Hord (1987), Smith and Andrews (1989), and Wilson and Corcoran(1989) suggested that effective leaders are those who inspire followers to ahigher purpose while at the same time taking specific actions that enablethe process to move forward toward some expressed or articulated goal orobjective. These findings were reinforced by Leithwood and Jantzi (1990)who found that principals who were successful in school improvement:

Used a variety of bureaucratic mechanisms to stimulate and reinforcecultural change;Fostered staff development;Engaged in direct and frequent communication about cultural norms,values, and beliefs;Shared power and responsibility with others; andUsed symbols to express cultural values.The findings of Leithwood and Jantzi (1990) and others support

Carlson when he stated "there is a consensus view that the organizations ofthe future . . . will need leaders and followers invested in a transformationalprocess" (1996, p. 137). Such a process, according to Bryman (1992),includes visionary leadership, communicating the vision, empowerment,organizational culture, and trust.

School leaders who practice the principles of transformational lead-ership will facilitate collaborative decision making by (Leithwood & Jantzi,1990; Louis, Kruse, & Raywid, 1996):

Providing time for collaborative decision making;Assuming the role of intellectual leader and stimulatingintellectual growth of all stakeholders;Empowering and trusting others to make good decisions;Allowing others to assume leadership positions;Creating, supporting, and nurturing a community of learners;Focusing collaborative efforts on the improvement of educationalexperiences of the students.

EJ SummaryBuilding involvement in decision making presents some major challengesfor middle level leaders. These challenges, which focus around issues ofinfluence, authority, and direction raise some interesting questions: Howcan authority be shared while still meeting the demands for administrator

314322


accountability expected by superintendents, school boards, and state legis-latures? How can schools be organized to facilitate broadly based partici-pation in decision making? How can collaborative decision making be fo-cused to foster positive climate and empowerment while at the same timeimprove the quality of educational experiences? Answers to these ques-tions lie in the various forms adopted for collaboration and the attitudesand willingness of middle level leaders to share decision making in waysthat are meaningful and significant. E

ReferencesBailey, W. (1991). School-site management applied. Lancaster, PA:

Technomic.

Bird, T., & Little, J. (1986). How schools organize the teaching occupation.

The Elementary School Journal, 86 (4), 493-511.Bryk, A., Easton, J., Krebow, D., Rol low, S., & Sebring, P. (1993). A view

from the schools: The state of reform in Chicago. Chicago: University of Chicago,

Consortium on Chicago School Research.Bryman, A. (1992). Charisma and leadership in organizations. Newbury

Park, CA: Sage.Carlson, R. (1996). Reframing and reform: Perspectives on organization,

leadership, and school change. White Plains, NY: Longman Publishers.

Clark, S., & Clark, D. (1996). Building collaborative environments for suc-

cessful middle level restructuring. NASSP Bulletin, 80 (578), 1-16.

Clark, S. & Clark, D. (1994). Restructuring the middle level school: Impli-

cations for school leaders. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Elmore, R. (1993). School decentralization: Who gains? Who loses? In J.Hannaway & M. Carnoy (Eds.), Decentralization and school improvement (pp.33-54). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Dawson, J. (1984). The principal' s role in facilitating teacher participation.

Mediating the influence of school context. Philadelphia, PA: Research for BetterSchools.

George, P., & Shewey, K. (1994). New evidence for the middle school. Co-

lumbus, OH: National Middle School Association.Hall, G., & Hord, S. (1987). Change in schools: Facilitating the process.

Albany, NY: State University of New York.

Hannaway, J. (1993). Decentralization in two school districts: Challengingthe standard paradigm. In J. Hannaway & M. Carnoy (Eds.), Decentralization and

school improvement (pp. 135-162). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

323 3 5


Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (1990, April). Transformational leadership: How

principals can help reform school culture. Paper presented at American Educa-tional Research Association annual meeting, Boston.

Leithwood, K., & Steinbach, R. (1995). Expert problem solving: Evidencefrom school and district leaders. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Levine, D., & Eubanks, E. (1992). Site-based management: Engine for re-

form or pipedream? Problems, prospects, pitfalls, and prerequisites for success. In

J .J. Lane & E. E. Epps (Eds.), Restructuring the schools: Problems and prospects

(pp. 61-82). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.

Lindelow, J., Coursen, D., Mazzarella, J., Heynderickz, J., & Smith, S. (1989).

Participative decision making. In S. Smith, & P. Piele (Eds.), School leadership:

Handbook for excellence (pp. 152-167). Eugene, OR: ERIC Clearinghouse onEducational Management, University of Oregon.

Little, J. (1982). Norms of collegiality and experimentation: Workplace con-

ditions of school success. American Educational Research Journal, 19 (3), 325-340.

Louis, K., Kruse, S., & Raywid, M. (1996). Putting teachers at the center of

reform: Learning schools and professional communities. NASSP Bulletin, 80 (580),

9-21.

Louis, K., & Murphy, J. (1994). The evolving role of the principal. In J.Murphy and K. Louis (Eds.), Reshaping the principalship: Insights from transfor-

mational reform efforts (pp. 265-279). Thousand Oaks. CA: Corwin Press, Inc.

Purkey, S., & Smith, M. (1982). Effective schools: A review. Madison, WI:

Wisconsin Center for Educational Research, University of Wisconsin.

Rosenholtz, S. (1985). Political myths about educational reform: Lessonsfrom research on teaching. Phi Delta Kappan, 66 (5), 349-355.

Rosenholtz, S. (1989). Teachers' workplace: The social organization ofschools. New York: Longman.

Rost, J. (1991). Leadership for the twenty-first century. New York: Praeger.

Sergiovanni, T. (1990). Value-added leadership: How to get extraordinaryperformance in schools. San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Shedd, J. & Bacharach, S. (1991). Tangled hierarchies: Teachers as profes-

sionals and the management of schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publish-ers.

Smith, S., & Scott, J. (1990). The collaborative school: A work environment

for effective instruction. Eugene, OR: ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Man-

agement/National Association of Secondary School Principals.Smith, W., & Andrews, R. (1989). Instructional leadership: How principals

make a difference. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and CurriculumDevelopment.

324

316


Smylie, M., (1994). Redesigning teachers' work: Connections to the class-room. In L. Darling-Hammond (Ed.), Review of research in education, No. 20 (pp.

129-169), Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

Smylie, M., Brownlee-Conyer, J., & Crowson, R. (1991, April). When teach-

ers make district-level decisions: A case study. Paper presented at the annual meet-

ing of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.

Valentine, J., Clark, D., Irvin, J., Keefe, J., & Melton, G. (1993). Leadership

in middle level education, Vol. I: A national survey of middle level leaders andschools. Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals.

Valentine, J., Clark, D., Nickerson, N., Jr., & Keefe, J. (1981). The middle

level principalship: A survey of middle level principals and programs, Vol. I.,Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals.

White, P. (1992). Teacher empowerment under "ideal" school-site autonomy.

Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 14 (1), 69-82.Wilson, B. & Corcoran, T. (1988). Successful secondary schools: Visions of

excellence in American education. Philadelphia: Falmer Press.

325 31 7

Sally N. Clark and Donald C. Clark

Women in Leadership Roles

/n spite of the increased involvement of women in a variety of schoolleadership roles over the past decade, little of the past leadership lit-erature has focused on women leaders in education. Noddings (1990),

for example, lamented the absence of feminist scholarship from educa-tional administration as a field of study. Throughout the 1970s and 1980s,the theoretical bases that emerged for educational leadership were predomi-nantly centered around research conducted by white males studying whitemale leaders (Dunlap, 1995; Hill & Ragland, 1995). In fact, this researchhas largely shaped the standards of success for school administrators, stan-dards of success that are built around male models of discipline and power(Kempner, 1991).

Women leaders, however, are redefining leadership on their own termsand devising ways of leading that make sense to them (Helgeson, 1995).They are achieving success in implementing appropriate programs in middlelevel schools (Valentine, Clark, Irvin, Keefe, & Melton, 1993), and theyare overrepresented in principalships of schools identified as being highlysuccessful (Shakeshaft, 1987). This success of women leaders should notbe surprising, for over the past ten years numerous research studies havesuggested that: (a) the new vision of the effective school principal is of onewho is collaborative in decision making and skilled at instructional leader-ship (Andrews & Basom, 1990; Kanthak, 1991), (b) the traditional femaleapproaches to schooling look like the prescriptions for administrative be-havior in effective schools (Rutherford, 1985), (c) successful women lead-ers demonstrate high levels of skill in communication, problem solving,organizational savvy, team building, and instruction and curriculum

327

318


(Andrews & Basom, 1990; Gardenswartz & Rowe, 1987; Hill & Ragland,1995; Marshall, 1988; Shakeshaft, 1987), and (d) as a group women aremore likely to evidence behavior associated with effective leadership (Smith& Andrews, 1989).

In this chapter, we will examine the evolution of research on womenin leadership positions, offer a profile of women leaders in education, anddescribe the qualities that women bring to their leadership positions. Thechapter will conclude with the implications of the research for women de-siring to obtain leadership positions.

0 Perspectives on Research on Women Leaders D

In examining the unique role of women in leadership, Shakeshaft (1987)suggested that research on women in administration began to appear in theearly 1970s and by the mid 1980s the literature and research had becomesubstantial and progressed through the following six stages:

1. Documentation of the lack of women in leadership positions (Howmany women in school administration? What kinds of positions dothey hold?)

2. Identification of famous or exceptional women in the history of schoolleadership (Is there a history of women in school leadership? Havewomen done the same things men have done? Do women's achieve-ments meet male standards?)

3. Investigation of women's place in schools from the framework asdisadvantaged or subordinate (Why are there so few women lead-ers?)

4. Examination of women leaders women studied on their own termsand the female world of leadership is documented (How do womenleaders describe their experiences and lives?)

5. Confrontation of existing theories in educational leadership (How musttheory change to include women's experiences?)

6. Transformation of theory so that both women's and men's theory canbe understood together (What are theories of human behavior in or-ganizations?)These six stages provide an excellent historic perspective for exam-

ining past and present leadership roles that women assume. Much of theinformation in this chapter is drawn from studies which focus on Stage 4Examination of Women Leaders (e.g. Andrews & Basom, 1990; Helgeson,1990, 1995; Hill & Ragland, 1995; Shakeshaft, 1987). It is evident from

328

319

WOMEN IN LEADERSHIP ROLES

these and other studies that new theories such as transformational leader-ship, which include as major components vision, communication of vision,empowerment, organizational culture, and trust (Bryman, 1992) stronglyembrace values and skills found in women educational leaders (Clark, 1995;Hill & Ragland, 1995; Shakeshaft, 1987). It is also evident that these stud-ies are providing the necessary information to confront the existing theo-ries of educational leadership (Stage 5) and will lead to the transformationof theory so that both women's and men's theory can be understood to-gether (Stage 6).

The leadership theories and practices now accepted not only incorpo-rate but appreciate the skills and characteristics of women's leadership.Collaborative leadership practices are not, of course, the exclusive domainof women. Ample evidence exists that male leaders hired within the lastten years are also more likely to use collaborative and facilitative leader-ship (Helgeson, 1995; Kanthak, 1991). Perhaps the prediction made byBurns in 1978 is becoming a reality:

As leadership comes more properly to be seen as a process ofleaders engaging and mobilizing the human needs and aspira-tions of followers, women will be more readily recognized asleaders and men will change their own leadership styles.

p. 50

ID Profiles of Women in Leadership ID

A profile of women in middle level and other levels of leadership drawnfrom the research (Hill & Ragland, 1995; Pavan & D'Angelo, 1990; Valen-tine et al., 1993) shows that women are older than their male counterparts,they were older when they received their first administrative appointment,they have fewer total years as administrators, and they have spent less timein their current position. Women have more years of teaching experience,more preparation (e.g. graduate degrees), tend to be in larger populationareas, and represent greater ethnic diversity.

Women principals indicated they chose to go into the principalship touse their special abilities more effectively, to work with people, to make apositive impact on children and teachers, to make a difference, and to im-prove instruction (Newman, 1993; Valentine et al., 1993; Woo, 1985). Whenasked to identify factors that were influential in receiving their first princi-pal appointment, females gave high ratings to "contacts in the profession"

329 320


and "performance in formal and informal assignments outside the class-room!' Female principals in the NASSP study (Valentine et al., 1993) at-tached greater importance to networking, mentoring, and sponsorship, av-enues that traditionally have been less available to them, and to the qualityof their performance, than did the male principals. Females also indicatednumber of years and success as a teacher, number of years as an assistantprincipal, and successful job interview as being influential.

Both female and male middle level principals questioned in the NASSPstudy (Valentine et al., 1993) believed an important path to the principalshipwas experience as assistant principals and in teacher leadership roles. Overone-half of the women and one-third of the men were assistant principalsat the middle level prior to being appointed to the principalship. Elevenpercent of the males moved directly from a teaching position to aprincipalship. This option appeared to be unavailable to women as none ofthe female respondents indicated that career path. Slightly more femaleprincipals reported that they had held department chairs (40 percent fe-male; 37 percent male), and more females than males had served as teamleaders (27 percent female; 24 percent male).

Women's Leadership Emphasis ED

In drawing from the research on women in educational leadership,Shakeshaft (1987) identified four areas descriptive of female work behav-ior as an educational leader. Three of these descriptors, (1) the centrality ofrelationships with others, (2) the major focus of teaching and learning, and(3) the importance of building community, provide the focus for the fol-lowing section of this chapter. The fourth area, the gender issues of mar-ginality, token status, and sexist attitudes toward women, while important,will not be addressed as a separate topic in this chapter.

Zi Relationships and networkingRelations with others are central to women administrators and they

"spend more time with people, communicate more, care more about indi-vidual differences, are concerned more with teachers and marginal stu-dents, and motivate more" (Shakeshaft, 1987, p. 8). The importance ofrelationships may partially explain the leadership roles that women take.Helgeson (1990), for example, in interviewing women business leaders,found that they referred to themselves as being in the middle of things. Notat the top, but in the center; not reaching down, but reaching out. She also

3 21330


described the importance of group affiliation rather than individual achieve-ment as having the highest value for women leaders.

In the process of devising ways of leading that made sense tothem, the women I studied had built profoundly integrated or-ganic organizations, in which the focus was on nurturing goodrelationships ; in which the niceties of hierarchical rank and dis-tinction played little part, and in which lines of communicationwere multiple, open, and diffuse. p. 265

Networking is an important component in building relationships.Networking, according to Hill and Ragland (1995), emphasizes connec-tions and legitimizes social interaction with people. Swoboda and Millar(1986) found networking especially beneficial in helping women developgreater self-reliance and less dependency. While essential to passing alongcollective wisdom, they also found that the foundation developed throughnetworking supports increased confidence in one's leadership (Swoboda &Millar, 1986). The relationships and support developed through network-ing may, perhaps, offer an explanation as to why in the NASSP study (Val-entine et al., 1993) higher percentages of female principals held member-ships in every professional association category on the survey. This in-cluded memberships in professional teacher associations (e.g., NEA, AFT),administrator associations (e.g., NASSP, NAESP), subject area professionalassociations (e.g., NCTM, NCTE, NCSS), honorary professional associa-tions (e.g., PDK), and general professional associations for the middle level(e.g., NMSA).

Li Curriculum and instructionWomen spend more time on the curricular and instructional aspects

of the principalship and are more likely to be perceived by their teachers asexemplifying instructional leadership than are men (Andrews & Basom,1990). Women principals, according to Shakeshaft's (1987) analysis of re-search, "are more instrumental in instructional learning than are men, andthey exhibit greater knowledge of teaching methods and techniques" (p.8). The data from the NASSP study (Valentine et al., 1993) are consistentwith the findings of Andrews and Basom (1990) and of Shakeshaft (1987).Over half of the women middle level principals in the study reported theyspent more than 60 hours per week on the job as compared with less than athird of their male counterparts, and more of that time was spent on pro-gram development by women principals than by men. This, along withtheir strong belief system favoring interdisciplinary teaming and advisory

331 322


programs, may explain why female principals were more likely to havethese programs in their schools then were male principals.

The greater support for and implementation of appropriate middlelevel programs in schools by female principals may be partially explainedby a strong commitment to middle level education. It may also be explainedby the fact that they have considerably more teaching experience than maleprincipals (McGrath, 1992; Pavan & D'Angelo, 1990; Valentine et al., 1993)and by their strong interest in curriculum and instructional issues (Andrews& Basom, 1990; Shakeshaft, 1987).

Ci Community building and visionary leadershipShakeshaft (1987) reported that building a community was an essen-

tial part of women's leadership style. Women use language that encouragescommunity building, engage in participatory styles that foster inclusive-ness, and reach out to the community (Marshall, 1988). The NASSP study(Valentine et al., 1993), for example, found that female middle level princi-pals were more likely than males to seek participation from citizens andparents in advisory activities. Typically these activities include offeringadvice and suggestions regarding: student activities; school finances andfund raising; program changes; considering new programs; determiningobjectives and priories of the school. Female principals are also more likelythan males to involve parents and citizens in the operations of the schoolsuch as sponsors of student activities, as school and classroom resourcepersons, and as volunteer aides and tutors. This collaborative behavior isstrongly supported by Helgeson (1990) who in her study described the lead-ership style of women leaders in the business sector. She suggested thatwomen typically place themselves in the middle of the organization ratherthan at the top. The result is what she calls "a web of inclusion," an organi-zation that includes all, even those on the periphery, in sharing the respon-sibilities and rewards of major undertakings. Obviously, women middlelevel principals in the NASSP study (Valentine et al., 1993) are using theweb of inclusion in their attempts to involve parents and community mem-bers in the operation of their schools.

In addition to increasing the "web of inclusion," community buildingalso requires leaders with a vision for their schools. Women principals inHill and Ragland's (1995) study when asked to give descriptors of theirleadership styles used words and phrases such as "problem solvers" and"creators of vision and ideas." They also used other words that describebehavior critical to building community: high expectations for self and oth-

332

3 2 3


ers, trustworthiness, fairness, dependability, and honesty in dealing withpeople.

References to empowering others and team building, two other im-portant factors in community building, are found frequently in the study ofwomen's leadership. Hill and Ragland (1995) found that women are notthreatened by empowering others and that they (women) are more adept atempowering and team building than are men. They also suggested that "inenlightened schools, administrators no longer consider how to handle teach-ers but instead find ways to empower" (Hill & Ragland, 1995, p. 45).

LI Implications for Practice

As the research indicates, females in leadership roles are making importantcontributions to the advancement of developmentally responsive schoolsfor young adolescents. The NASSP study (Valentine et al., 1993) and otherresearch (Hill & Ragland, 1995; Shakeshaft, 1987) in the past decade indi-cate that not only do females bring more instructional experience into themiddle level school principalship, they are more highly educated, they aremore involved in professional associations, they are more likely to focustheir energies on personnel and program issues, they are more likely tohave specifically "identified" middle level programs in their schools, andthey are more likely to engage parents and community members in schoolgovernance and activities.

It also appears that more females are assuming leadership responsi-bilities in their middle level schools (Valentine et al., 1993). After a declinein numbers in the 1960s, 1970s, and early 1980s (Marshall, 1984), the num-bers of women in middle level leadership positions have increased fromsix percent in 1981 (Valentine, Clark, Nickerson, & Keefe) to 20 percent in1993 (Valentine et al., 1993). By assuming the positions of assistant princi-pals, department heads, team leaders, and members of school leadershipcouncils (Valentine et al., 1993), female middle level educators are notonly employing their expertise and extending their influence at their schools,they are taking important steps on the pathway to the principalship. It isreasonable to assume that if this trend continues, more and more femaleswill be appointed to middle level principalships.

Women educators who are actively preparing themselves for leader-ship roles are encountering more comfortable graduate school settings (Hill& Ragland, 1995). Comprising more that 60 percent of the students en-rolled in educational leadership programs (McCarthy, Kuh, Newell, &

333324


Iacona, 1988), women are now engaged in programs that are more realisti-cally linked with the reality of the workplace, that are increasing the num-ber of women faculty members, and that are initiating reforms in approachesto preparing school leaders. Women are emerging from these reformedpreparation programs with insights and essential skills necessary for rede-signing school structures (Hill & Ragland, 1995). Women must continue toseek out opportunities to improve their skills and commit themselves toactive participation in leadership preparation programs.

Women educators must also be more proactive in seeking out leader-ship positions in their schools (Hill & Ragland, 1995). Teacher leadership,an area where women appear to be actively involved (Valentine et al., 1993),provides opportunities for women to showcase their leadership skills (Hill& Ragland, 1995). Although it is still ill defined in its application and un-tested in its contribution to student achievement (Smylie, 1994), teacherleadership offers one of the most promising opportunities for teachers togain valuable skills, become more visible, and to network with school, dis-trict, and community leaders. Seeking out and actively participating in thevariety of leadership opportunities in their schools should be a high prior-ity of women desiring administrative positions.

The research is very clear about the contributions of women leaders.With only 20 percent of the nation's middle level schools being led bywomen principals, it is evident that a rich pool of potential leaders remainslargely untapped. It is critical that continued efforts be made to encouragewomen to consider administrative positions as a career option; to involvethem in leadership experiences in the school, district, and community; andto facilitate opportunities for participation in programs that will assist themin acquiring the skills and insights necessary for success. E

ReferencesAndrews, R., & Basom, M. (1990). Instructional leadership: Are women

principals better? Principal, 70 (2), 38-40.

Bryman, A. (1992). Charisma and leadership in organizations. NewburyPark, CA: Sage.

Bums, J. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.Clark, S. (1995). Women in middle level school administration: Findings

from a national study. Middle School Journal, 26 (4), 34-38.

Dunlap, D. (1995). Women leading: An agenda for a new century. In D.Dunlap & P. Schmuck (Eds.), Women leading in education (pp. 423-435). Albany,

NY: State University of New York Press.

'325 334


Gardenswartz L. & Rowe, A. (1987). Getting to the top: The 5 success se-crets of women who have made it, Executive Female, X (6), 34-38.

Helgeson, S. (1995). The web of inclusion. New York: Doubleday.

Helgeson, S. (1990). The female advantage: Women' s ways of leadership.

New York: Doubleday.

Hill, M. & Ragland, J. (1995). Women as educational leaders: Opening win-

dows, pushing ceilings. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.Kanthak, L. (1991). The effects of gender on work orientation and the im-

pact of principal selection. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Cali-

fornia, Riverside.Kempner, K. (1991). Getting into the castle of educational administration.

Peabody Journal of Education, 66 (3), 104-123.Marshall, C. (1988). Analyzing the culture of school leadership. Education

and Urban Society, 20 (3), 262-275.

Marshall, C. (1984). The crisis of excellence and equity. Educational Hori-

zons, 63 (1), 24-30.McCarthy, M., Kuh, G., Newell, L., & Iacona C. (1988). Under scrutiny:

The educational administration professorate. Tempe, AZ: University Council for

Educational Administration.

McGrath, S. (1992). Here come the women. Educational Leadership, 49(5), 62-65.

Newman, N. (1993, November). Making it to the top: Results of structured

interviews with women in university level administrative positions. Paper presented

at the annual meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association, New

Orleans, LA.Noddings, N. (1990). Feminist critiques in the professions. In C. Cazden

(Ed.). Review of Research in Education, 16 (pp. 393-424), Washington, DC: Ameri-

can Educational Research Association.

Pavan, B., & D'Angelo, J. (1990, April). Gender dijferences in the careerpaths of aspiring and incumbent educational administrators. Paper presented atthe annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston,MA.

Rutherford, W. (1985). School principals as effective leaders. Phi DeltaKappan, 67 (1), 31-34.

Shakeshaft, C. (1987). Theory in a changing reality. Journal of Educational

Equity and Leadership, 7 (1), 4-20Smith, W. & Andrews, R. (1989). Institutional Leadership. Alexandria, VA:

Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

335 326


Smylie, M., (1994). Redesigning teachers' work: Connections to the class-room. In L. Darling-Hammond (Ed.), Review of Research in Education, 20 (pp.129-169), Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

Swoboda, M. & Millar, S. (1986). Networking-mentoring: Career strategy

of women in academic administration. Journal of the National Association forWomen Deans, Administrators, and Counselors, 50 (1), 8-12.

Valentine, J., Clark, D., Irvin, J., Keefe, J. & Melton, G. (1993). Leadership

in middle level education, Vol. 1: A national survey of middle level leaders andschools. Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals.

Valentine, J., Clark, D., Nickerson, N., Jr., & Keefe, J. (1981). The middlelevel principalship: A survey of middle level principals and programs, Vol. I.,Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals.

Woo, C. (1985). Women administrators: Profiles of success. Phi DeltaKappan, 66 (4), 285-287.

336

Jerry Valentine, Susan Trimble, and Todd Whitaker

The Middle Level Principalship

Middle schools have been involved in the restructuring work ofreform for the past two decades, a period of time when the num-ber of middle level schools has steadily increased while the

number of junior highs has decreased (Digest of Education Statistics, 1995).Less dramatic is the increase in specific middle level practices implementedin schools for young adolescents, a fact which may bear witness to a gen-eral resistance to educational change (Wehlage, Smith, & Lipman, 1992),the persistence of standard operational procedures reinforcing old behav-iors (Leithwood & Duke, 1993), and a variety of other explanations (Cu-ban, 1996). In many ways, this transition taking place in schools for youngadolescents with its accompanying setbacks, gradual progress, and numer-ous successes has been the forerunner of the general restructuring move-ment currently taking place in elementary and secondary schools. At thistime, elementary and high schools are adopting practices similar to middleschool concepts, such as block scheduling, interdisciplinary faculty teams,and various programs to provide group and individual advisement. Similarto middle level reform, reform efforts in K-12 schools often encounter con-flicts and challenges what Lieberman (1988) termed "turf, tension, andnew tasks." At the center of this dynamic change process is the middleschool principalship.

Recent studies provide evidence that for reform and restructuring tooccur, effective school leadership is essential (Leithwood, Begley, & Cous-ins, 1990). Principal practices in many cases are associated with changes inthe school's culture, student achievement and behavior, attendance, andteachers' willingness to change instructional practices (Leithwood & Duke,

3" 328 .


1993). The importance of the principal in the area of restructuring and thechange process is therefore central to this review of the research on middlelevel principals and its meaning for practitioners. We begin this chapterwith a description of the roles, characteristics, and knowledge of effectivemiddle level principals. That section is followed by a discussion of re-search studies specifically addressing behavioral aspects of more effectivemiddle level principals. We conclude with a synthesis of the research onprincipals and restructuring.

Compared to the many years of study of the K-12 principalship, thesystematic study of principals in middle level schools is relatively new. Infact, the term "middle level" first appeared nationally as recently as 1981in a Dodge Foundation/National Association of Secondary School Princi-pals (NASSP) study report titled The Middle Level Principalship, VolumeI: A Survey of Middle Level Principals and Programs (Valentine, Clark,Nickerson, & Keefe, 1981). Throughout the eighties "middle level" grewin acceptance as a viable alternative to the terms junior high school andmiddle school. While the formal initiation of the term can be traced to thatstudy, the popularization of the term was due in large part to the tirelessefforts of George Melton, NASSP's Associate Executive Director.

CI Middle level principal roles, characteristics, and knowledgeIn many ways, the middle level principalship has been at the fore-

front in the reform movement. Middle level principals have helped to es-tablish environments for curricular and instructional change developmen-tally appropriate for young adolescents. With the drastic evolution of middlelevel education from the all-too-often less than child-centered programs ofthe junior high to the more child-centered programs of the middle school,effective principals became leaders of change, establishers of moral andethical principles, creators of empowering environments, and promoters ofcollegiality and collaborative decision making in schools for young ado-lescents.

We see each of these roles enacted in team, school, and district meet-ings, where decisions are made regarding scheduling, curriculum,intramurals or scholastic sports, and the formation of partnerships with stake-holders. Spindler & George (1984) noted an essential role of middle schoolprincipals, "Principals must be a good moderator for open meetings, wheredivergent thinking must be expressed or recognized while working towardsconsensus" (p. 294).

Clark and Clark (1989) emphasized that middle level administratorsmust have a passion for middle level schools. They noted that the passion

338

329

THE MIDDLE LEVEL PRINCIPALSHIP

must be a burning desire to do everything humanly possible to create adevelopmentally responsive school that meets the unique needs of youngadolescents. Other characteristics include a willingness to share decisionmaking and an attitude of support, care, and nurturance for all people in theschool. Many of these characteristics are similar to previous findings wherethe effective middle school principal is (1) perceived by teachers as high inpeople orientation, (2) perceived by parents as extremely effective in work-ing with parents and the community, and (3) perceived by both parents andteachers as the key to a good school climate (Keefe, Clark, Nickerson, &Valentine, 1983).

The Clarks (1989) provided insight into the unique knowledge basesfor principals of middle level schools. They argued that significant knowl-edge in five areas is essential to make informed decisions: young adoles-cent characteristics and behavior, successful middle level programs, theschool's strengths and weaknesses, parental and community expectations,and the change process.

Other researchers have cited the importance of the knowledge basefor principals. George and Grebing (1992) listed the demonstration of "acompassionate understanding of the characteristics and needs of the devel-oping adolescent" (p. 3) as the first of seven essential skills of middle levelleadership. Visionary leadership was examined by Stillerman (1992) whofound that the visions of principals were shaped by their knowledge ofexemplary middle school practices, and as visionary principals, they weresuccessful in implementing their vision. Knowledge of exemplary prac-tice and educational research, such as the impact of staffing in the middlegrades on instruction and relations (McPartland, 1990), may also guideprincipals' decisions related to the hiring and maintaining of quality fac-ulty and staff or influence any of the other numerous daily decisions madeby principals.

ID Effective middle level principalsSeveral studies are particularly noteworthy for their contributions to

the knowledge of effective middle level leadership (Ingersoll, 1994; Johnson,1992; Keefe et al., 1983; Stillerman, 1992; Whitaker and Valentine, 1993).An NASSP research team (Keefe et al., 1983) identified the following char-acteristic behaviors of effective middle level principals.

1. Effective principals work significantly longer work days than the av-erage middle level principal.

2. Effective principals view themselves as more democratic and partici-pative than their teachers view them. The teachers do perceive them

339

0 J. 0


as very humane, fair, democratic, and high in people orientation andtask accomplishment.

3. Effective principals are rated extremely effective in staff relations andfrequently interact with students, and involve a variety of personsand groups in new program development.

4. Effective principals involve faculty in the planning and implementa-tion of staff development activities and value in-service over univer-sity training.Ten years later Whitaker and Valentine (1993) used a pool of 163

middle level schools to identify schools with "more effective" principalsand schools with "less effective" principals. They studied eight schoolsthat were one standard deviation above or below the group norm based on(a) teacher responses to the Audit of Principal Effectiveness, a nationallynormed assessment of principal skills, and (b) teacher responses to instru-ments from NASSP's Comprehensive Assessment of School Environments(CASE) instrument set. On-site visits and interviews with teachers and theprincipals revealed three key differences between the more effective andless effective principals.

1. Effective principals view themselves as responsible for all aspects oftheir school. Though these principals regularly involved staff, par-ents, and others in decision making, they believed it was their respon-sibility to do whatever was necessary to make their school be the bestit could be. The less effective principals were much more willing to"blame" outside factors for problems in their schools.

2. In effective schools, teachers and principals share the same perspec-tives of how much input teachers have in decision making with theirschools. More effective principals and their teachers have the sameperspective as to how the teachers are involved in decision making.Less effective principals indicated that they involve their teachers muchmore than their teachers feel that they do.

3. Effective principals identify key teachers and informally involve themin decision making. Regardless of formal decision-making structuresin their schools, effective principals went to their informal teacherleaders for input on major decisions or changes affecting the schools.In a study comparing more effective middle level principals with ran-

domly selected ones, Bauck (1987) reached three conclusions supportedby the studies of Keefe and associates (1983) and Keefe, Valentine, Clark,and Irvin (1994). His conclusions addressed the use of time, degree of au-thority, and perceptions of roadblocks of effective principals:

331 3"


1. Effective principals spend less time on student behavior and districtoffice responsibilities and more time on professional developmentand planning.

2. Effective principals had more authority to fill teacher vacancies andto allocate budget funds than non-effective principals.

3. Effective principals perceived roadblocks to accomplishing their ob-jectives as less constraining than did their peers.Stillerman (1992) looked at the visionary aspects of effective princi-

pals at five middle schools to understand how they communicate and imple-ment a vision in their schools.

In the current study, visionary leadership is portrayed as an in-teractive, recursive process in which the principal is continu-ally drawing on his/her own knowledge, values, personal andpositional authority, and technical know how, to shape schoolculture toward a vision of exemplary middle grades schooling.Simultaneously, the influence of district expectation/regulationand the status quo of school culture are shaping the principal'svision in an ongoing manner p. 60

The George and Grebing (1992) list of principal skills needed to cre-ate and sustain middle level practices provide a link between research andpractice. The applications of the essential skills which follow each listedskill were everyday examples of many researched tenets of successful middlelevel principal behaviors. These applications include building interdisci-plinary teams, establishing a process for continual school improvement,being an instructional leader, and hiring and maintaining quality facultyand staff.

Each of these studies of middle school principals had certain similari-ties and differences in findings. The Whitaker & Valentine (1993) studyrevealed the engagement of effective principals with their faculty and keyteachers while feeling responsible for their schools. Bauck (1987) on theother hand highlighted the use of time, degree of authority, and perceptionsof roadblocks of effective principals, while Stillerman (1992) found an as-sociation between shared decision making and building a shared vision.The Keefe studies were very broad in nature and generally supported theseconclusions and provided many other pertinent aspects of middle level lead-ership. Clearly, effective schools have strong principals who promote qual-ity collaboration and shared decision making.

341 332


CI The middle school principal and restructuringThe middle school principal operates within a context of forces that

Rowan (1990) labels as two inconsistent reform strategies that form theorganizational design of schools. The first strategy is centralized control,with bureaucratic, top-down, hierarchical structures for decision making.This perspective of centralized control focuses on greater accountabilityand state controls, illustrated by the number of state legislatures and dis-tricts this decade that responded to problems by increasing bureaucraticcontrol (Furhman, Clure, & Elmore, 1988; Rowan, Edelstein, & Leal, 1983;Trimble & Herrington, 1997). The other strategy is the professional au-tonomy of teachers in schools where supportive environments enhancethe commitment and expertise of teachers (Darling-Hammond & Wise,1985; Rosenholtz, 1987). This strategy is exemplified by the recommenda-tions to replace hierarchical structures with networks and collaborative part-nerships for decision making (Carnegie Task Force on Teaching as a Pro-fession, 1986).

These two perspectives play out in everyday life at the school level. Itis the principal who must have the knowledge, skills, and positive mentalframeworks to address and balance the forces representative of these per-spectives. We find, therefore, that the concept of "leadership for restruc-turing" is pervasive throughout contemporary literature of the principalship(Barth, 1990; Boyer, 1995; Goldring & Rallis, 1993; Hopkins, Ainscow, &West, 1994; Lieberman, Ed., 1995; Newmann & Wehlage, 1995;Sergiovanni, 1996). Two books of such magnitude focus specifically onthe middle level principalship.

In 1994, Sally and Don Clark's Restructuring the Middle Level School:Implications for School Leaders was published. From the first chapter tothe last, the Clarks articulately apply the research and literature of changeand restructuring within the middle level context. They note that middlelevel schools are continually "under construction." They described fourfactors necessary to sustain this process of change, or as they call it, "workin progress." Their message is simple, but it succinctly reflects a majorportion of the restructuring literature and thus the research about the con-temporary role of the middle level principal.

I. Middle level educators must look to themselves for answers. Withineach school community there is considerable expertise to solve prob-lems, implement new programs, improve school climate, and provideprofessional development. These schools' successes come from agroup of people who believe they can make a difference.

342

333


2. Middle level educators must reduce the sense of isolation that existsin their schools. They must find ways for teachers, administrators,parents, and community members to collaborate, to share expertise,and to participate in decision making.

3. Middle level educators must recognize that parents are powerful al-lies in the education of young adolescents. Steps must be taken toestablish structures that will involve parents in the everyday life ofthe school. p. 296A discussion of the importance of the role of the principal in restruc-

turing middle level schooling was a part of a comprehensive study of themiddle level leadership sponsored by the National Association of Second-ary School Principals from 1991-1994. The first book report from that study,entitled Leadership in Middle Level Education, Volume 1: A National Sur-vey of Middle Level Leaders and Schools (Valentine, Clark, Irvin, Keefe, &Melton, 1993) described in detail middle level principals, assistant princi-pals, and leadership team members. The second report, Leadership in MiddleLevel Education, Volume II: Leadership in Successful Restructuring MiddleLevel Schools (Keefe, Valentine, Clark, & Irvin, 1994) provided a rich de-scription of educational programs and practices used in successfully re-structuring schools. In that second volume, the authors reported character-istics of middle level principals of successfully restructuring schools. Thoseprincipals created environments with high levels of involvement and col-laboration in problem solving, governance, staff development, team opera-tions, and decision making. Systemic approaches for restructuring wereevident in the successful schools. The concept of "community" was alsoevident, as were high standards, trust, empowerment, and consensus-baseddecision making. The restructuring schools had unique cultures that re-flected the values, beliefs, and behaviors of the faculty.

Turning Points: Preparing American Youth for the 21st Century(Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development, 1989) may, in time, berecognized as the most influential writing of the contemporary middle levelera. While the report was not designed to address leadership per se, it doesserve as a means to underscore the key concepts that have emerged fromthis review on the role of middle level principalship at the school site. Cre-ating a community for learning cannot be accomplished without the skillsand competencies associated with restructuring. Empowering teachers andadministrators necessitates collaborative decision making and an emotion-ally safe school climate.

Evident to even the modest observer of the principalship is the drasticchange in the role of the principalship over the past two decades, requiring

343

3.34


special skills of the principal to unify the school as a whole, involve stake-holders, satisfy the demands of parents and the community, and complywith state mandates. The complexity of the forces acting upon theprincipalship calls forth a variety of principal styles. Leithwood and Duke(1993) noted, "It seems unlikely that any single existing leadership focusor theory can capture adequately the range of qualities required of futureleaders" (p. 329). As a result, the principalship transitioned from a "mana-gerial" focus to an "instructional" focus that includes skills in team build-ing (Trimble & Miller, 1996), in enabling adult growth and involving allstakeholders (Leithwood & Dukes, 1993), and in creating environmentsfor shared participative management (Shedd & Bacharach, 1991). Now theprincipalship is in the midst of an era described by Sergiovanni (1996) andClark and Clark (1996) as transformational and pedagogical.

CI ConclusionMore is known today about the persons called middle level principals

than ever before. For example, the percentage of women in the middlelevel principalship is steadily increasing, moving from 4% in 1966 to 6%in 1981 and 20% in 1992. Thirty-five percent of assistant principals and66% of leadership team members were female in 1992. Female leaderswere very evident in the restructuring schools, with women principals serv-ing as leaders in 32% of the successful restructuring schools studied byValentine, Keefe, Clark, Irvin and Melton from 1992-94 (Valentine et al,1993; Keefe et al, 1994). Middle level principals have more formal educa-tion than their predecessors, as evidenced by the nearly doubled percent-age of principals with doctorates from 1966 (4%) to 1992 (11%). Ninepercent of assistants and three percent of leadership team members have adoctorate. Female principals continue to be more formally educated thantheir male counterparts, with 17% holding a doctorate (Valentine et al, 1993).Higher levels of graduate preparation have been a consistent pattern for allmiddle level leaders for the past twenty-five years (Keefe et al, 1994).

Such changes in the demographics of principals coincide with thechanges in the roles, characteristics, knowledge, and behaviors of effectiveprincipals. Numerous pressures place the middle school principalship atthe center of an arena where innovative practices are implemented withinthe framework of educational policy and school/community norms. Thenext decade will no doubt produce more research on specific elements ofleadership that are conducive to bringing about change within the contextof political pressures, reform initiatives, and limited resources. Current re-search points to middle level principals continuing to act not only as in-

344

335


structional/management leaders, but also as "enablers" of the transforma-tion of middle level schools to become more developmentally responsiveto the nature and needs of young adolescents. E

ReferencesBarth, R. S. (1991). Improving schools from within: Teachers, parents, and

principals can make the difference. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.Bauck, J. (1987). Characteristics of the effective middle school principal.

NASSP Bulletin, 71 (500), 90-92.

Boyer, E. L. (1995). The basic school: A community for learning. Princeton,

NJ: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.



Carnegie Task Force on Teaching as a Profession (1986). A nation prepared:

Teachers for the 21 st century. New York: Carnegie Forum on Education and the

Economy.

Clark, S., & Clark, D. (1996). The principal's role in interdisciplinary cur-riculum: Bridging the gap between research and practice. ERS Spectrum: Journal

of School Research and Information, 14 (1), 15-23.Clark, S. N., & Clark, D. C. (1994). Restructuring the middle level school:

Implications for school leaders. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Clark, S. N., & Clark, D. C. (1989). School restructuring: A leadership chal-

lenge for middle level administrators. Schools in the Middle. Reston, VA: National

Association of Secondary School Principals.Cuban, L. (1996). Reforming again, again, and again. Educational Researcher,

19 (1), 3- 13.

Darling-Hammond. L., & Wise, A. E. (1985). Beyond standardization: State

standards and school improvement. Elementary School Journal, 85, 315-335.

Digest of Education Statistics. (1995). National center for education Statis-tics. Washington DC: Department of Education Statistics (1-800-424-1616).

Furhman, S., Clure, W. H., & Elmore, R. F. ( 1988). Research on Education

reform: Lessons on the implementation of policy. Teachers College Record, 90,237-257.

George, P.S., & Grebing, W. (1992). Seven essential skills of middle levelleadership. Schools in the Middle, 1 (4), 3-11.

Goldring, E. B., & Rallis, S. F. (1993). Principals of dynamic schools: Tak-

ing charge of change. Newbury, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.

Hopkins, D., Ainscow, M., & West, M. (1994). School improvement in anera of change. New York: Teachers College Press.

345 336


Ingersoll, R. M. (1994). Organizational control in secondary schools. HarvardEducational Review, 64 (2), 150-172.

Johnson, M. (1992).Principal leadership, shared decision-making, and stu-dent achievement. Research in Middle Level Education, 16 (1), 35-62.

Keefe, J. W., Valentine, J. W., Clark, D. C., & Irvin, J. L. (1994). Leadership

in middle level education, Volume II: Leadership in successfully restructuring middle

level schools. Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals.

Keefe, J. W., Clark, D. C., Nickerson, N. C., & Valentine, J. W. (1983). The

middle level principalship, Volume 11: The effective middle level principal. Reston,


Leithwork, K., Begley, P., & Cousins, B. (1990). The nature, causes andconsequences of principals' practices: An agenda for future research. Journal ofEducational Administration, 28 (4), 5-31.

Leithwood, K. A., & Duke, D. L. (1993). Defining effective leadership for

Connecticut's future schools. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 6,301-333.

Lieberman, A. (Ed.). (1995). The work of restructuring schools: Buildingfrom the ground up. New York: Teachers College Press.

Lieberman, A. (1988). Teachers and Principals: Turf, Tension, and New Tasks.Phi Delta Kappan, 69 (1), 29-34.

McPartland, J. M. (1990). Staffing decisions in the middle grades: Balanc-

ing quality instruction and teacher/student relations. Phi Delta Kappan, 71 (6),465-469.

National Governors' Association. (1986). Time for results. Washington DC:Author.

Newmann, F. M., & Wehlage, G. G. (1995). Successful school restructuring.

Madison, WI: Center on Organization and Restructuring of Schools.

Rosenholtz, S. J. (1987). Educational reform strategies: Will they increase

teacher commitment? American Journal of Education, 95, 534-562.

Rowan, B. (1990). Commitment and control: Alternative strategies for theorganizational design of schools. Review of Research in Education, 16, 353-389.Washington DC: AERA.

Rowan, B., Edelstein, R., & Leal, A. (1983). Pathways to excellence: Whatschool districts are doing to improve instruction. San Francisco: Far West Labora-

tory for Educational Research and Development.

Sergiovanni, T. J. (1996). Leadership for the schoolhouse: How is it differ-ent? Why is it important? San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Shedd, J., & Bacharach, S. B. (1991). Tangled hierarchies: Teachers as pro-

fessionals and the management of schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

346337


Spindler, J., & George, P. (1984). Participatory leadership in the middleschool. The Clearing House, 7, 293-95.

Stillerman, K. R (1992). Successful North Carolina Middle School Princi-

pals' Visions. Research in Middle Level Education, 16 (1), 62-74Trimble, S., & Herrington, C. (1997). Beyond schizophrenia: Sustaining long-

term educational reform and maintaining short-term political viability. Poster ses-

sion and roundtable at the Annual Meeting of the American Education Research

Association. Chicago, IL.Trimble, S., & Miller, J. W. (1996). Creating, invigorating, and sustaining

effective teams. NASSP Bulletin, 80 (584), 35-40.


Leadership in middle level education, Volume I: A national survey of middle level

leaders and schools. Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Prin-

cipals.Valentine, J. W., Clark, D. C., Nickerson, N.C., Jr., & Keefe, J. W. (1981).

The middle level principalship, Volume I: A survey of middle level principals and

programs. Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals.

Wehlage, G., Smith, G., & Lipman, P. (1992). Restructuring urban schools:

The new futures experience. American Educational Research Journal, 29 (1), 51-

93.

Whitaker, R., & Valentine, J. (1993). How do you rate? Schools in the Middle,

3 (2), 21- 24.

338347

kl2RR.12,1242R.124122RRI21212R2242.12R

212142it 2242

ank?IlinVar(12;124212,M12R/12.12:12

Issues andFuture Directions

Hough

Irvin

David HoughSouthwest MissouriState UniversitySpringfield, Missouri

Judith L. IrvinFlorida State UniversityTallahassee, Florida

339

David Hough and Judith Irvin

Setting a Research Agenda

perhaps for the first time since the onset of the great reorganizationeffort begun at the turn of the 20th century, middle level edu-cation reform initiatives can now be studied empirically. While

serving as catalysts for future studies, past research has been neithercoordinated nor comprehensive. The last decade of the 20th century andthe first decade of the 21st century should provide researchers with a numberof bona fide middle schools (encompassing age appropriate programs, poli-cies, and practices for young adolescents) to embark on a new and excit-ing era of scholarship never before realized on a national scale. At the cruxof the entire middle grades reform movement will remain the crucial issueof student achievement relative to middle school programs, policies, andpractices.

Contrary to popular belief, middle level education research is actu-ally ahead of its time, not behind. In fact, middle level education researchis ahead of almost every other reform initiative whether it be acceleratedschools, essential schools, state standards, assessments, or teacher prepa-ration. In terms of education research as a whole, middle level efforts standat the forefront. No other field, be it anthropology, medicine, psychology,or chemistry, for example, has advanced as quickly in methodologies anddesign as middle level education. While these other fields enjoy a longand substantial history (often spanning three hundred years or more), middlelevel education reform as a field of study did not really begin until after1900. While some research was performed during the first five decades ofthe 20th century, most substantive studies began well after the 1960s. Mo-mentum created by the 1960s movement away from junior highs to middle

351 3 4 0


schools "jump-started" research that escalated throughout the 1970s. Thenational call to alarm in the 1983 report A Nation At Risk and subsequentindictments against American public education fostered interest by theCarnegie Corporation to create a Task Force on Education of Young Ado-lescents. An initial report by this task force, Turning Points: PreparingAmerican Youth for the 21st Century (Carnegie Council on AdolescentDevelopment, 1989) created widespread interest and compelled schoolsthroughout the United States to begin implementing bona fide programs,policies, and practices for young adolescent learners.

Now, the crucial question being asked of middle grades education (aswell as all education reformers) is: "Does it work?" or "To what extent arethe reform efforts leading to improved student performance?" When legiti-mate questions such as these are broached, researchers tend to turn theirattention to designs that will address them. The problem, however, is thatresearchers may spend an inordinate amount of time simply discoveringthat the "wrong" questions are being asked, or that the questions are beingasked in the "wrong" way. Hence the need for a national middle schoolresearch agenda.

To ensure that the "right" questions are being asked the "right" waythe National Middle School Association is supporting an effort to establisha national middle grades research agenda. This concluding chapter of WhatCurrent Research Says to the Middle Level Practitioner takes a look atwhat has been done, what is being done, and what will be done to guidefuture efforts.

Student achievement has been and continues to be the "bugaboo" ofeducational research as well as reform initiatives at every level of school-ing. Over the past three decades, a veritable smorgasboard of studies haveaddressed subtle understandings regarding relationships of a number ofdifferent middle level programs, policies, practices to various student andteacher experiences. While some researchers (most often using ethnographicapproaches) have sought to understand school cultures and socialinteractions, only a precious few have tackled student outcomes, most no-tably academic achievement. Qualitative approaches, of course, cannot begeneralized and, in the past, quantitative researchers have shied away fromstudying student achievement. The so-called "shadow studies" (Lounsbury& Clark, 1990; Lounsbury & Johnston, 1985, 1988; Lounsbury, Marani, &Compton, 1980; Lounsbury & Marani, 1964) provide keen insight into stu-dent life in schools as well as schooling in general; but, again, learningoutcomes are not addressed.

352

3 4 1

SETTING A RESEARCH AGENDA FOR MIDDLE GRADES REFORM

The culmination in 1996 of a five-year ethnographic study begun in1991 by a team of UCLA researchers took a thorough look at the impact ofTurning Points as well as state and local initiatives on middle level schoolreform (Oakes, Serna, & Guiton, 1996). While school programs, policies,and practices across different middle level grade spans were not specifi-cally identified for study, researchers found significant efforts to make posi-tive changes in the school community and culture to effect school improve-ment (Gong, 1996; Oakes, Vasudeva, & Jones, 1996; Quartz, 1996; Ryan& Freidlaender, 1996).

Most quantitative studies have used self-report perceptional data thathave not controlled for threats to internal or external validity. Merely ask-ing principals, for instance, to what degree they believe specific middleschool components impact student achievement (as well as other outcomessuch as behavior and attendance) does not provide the empirical data neededto validate student outcomes, especially achievement. Much more sophis-tication in design is necessary to validate causal variables and examineaccurately cause-effect relationships. A significant improvement over pastefforts is demonstrated in the latest attempts by researchers to identify causalrelationships. Bruce & Singh (1996), for example, used path analysis tech-niques to examine the effects of a number of different school learning vari-ables on eighth-grade student achievement.

In 1993, a group of researchers in Illinois began collecting and ana-lyzing school-level data including but not limited to achievement for anumber of middle level schools. First in Illinois, then in neighboring states,and now throughout the country, researchers are engaged in data collectionefforts that should help begin to answer the student achievement question.

Preliminary results from the Illinois or AIMS study show that middleschool components seldom have direct, linear relationships to achievement;but that varying combinations of programs, policies, practices at variouslevels of implementation have significant positive effects on student achieve-ment (Felner, Jackson, Kasak, Mulhall, Brand, & Flowers, 1997). "Thecentral question of these analyses is the extent to which schools that haveattained different levels of implementation show concomitant differencesin student achievement, behavior, health practices, and socio/emotional ad-justment for all students and for targeted subgroups" (Felner et al., 1997, p.543). The findings of this multi-year study have thus far affirmed that stu-dents in schools with high levels of implementation of middle school pro-grams and practices demonstrated higher levels of achievement in math-ematics, language, and reading than students in schools with middle or lowlevels of implementation of middle school practices. Additionally, "reforms

353

342


implemented independently of one another are likely to produce little or nosignificant rise in student achievement, especially for disadvantaged youth"(Lipsitz, Jackson, & Austin, 1997, p. 519). That is, when practices such asinterdisciplinary team organization and advisory groups are implementedtogether and in proper sequence, with leadership support and with adequatestaff development, gains in student achievement and other outcomes arelikely to be positive (Felner et al., 1997). "Our findings to date stronglysupport the view that high quality schooling, well implemented, can makeprofound contributions to the achievement, mental health, and socio/behavioral functioning of students who are often left behind and for whomthere is often a sense that school cannot make a difference in their lives" (p.550).

From the AIMS study data and from years of experience with middlelevel reform efforts, Lipsitz, Mizell, Jackson, & Austin (1997) recommendedthat the necessary elements of reform included:

professional developmenttechnical assistancecoordination from district and/or state levelnetworks between and among schools, universities, and statedepartmentsdata-driven decision makingleadership from superintendentsstate-level leadershipimproved teacher preparationwell-informed public constituenciescomprehensiveness of reform efforts (p. 535-538).

The AIMS study, while ongoing, has assisted middle level educatorsin answering the question "Does it work?" The preliminary results indicatethat implementing only a piece of the Turning Points (19890 recommenda-tions does not have the positive impact on student outcomes (achievement,health, behavior) but that implementing a number of recommendations si-multaneously, properly sequenced, and properly supported does have a posi-tive impact. While these preliminary discoveries hold promise, various non-linear hierarchical models will need to be tested and re-tested over time tounderstand fully both the significance and importance of these relation-ships.

Recognition of the current state of middle level research along withthe need to address achievement issues has led the National Middle SchoolAssociation to develop a research agenda. A Research Agenda Task Forcemet in January 1996 to draft both an agenda and an action plan to

354

343

SETTING A RESEARCH AGENDA FOR MIDDLE GRADES REFORM

operationalize the agenda. Using This We Believe (1995) to develop re-search questions, this NMSA action plan could lead to research activitiesthat determine the relationship between various types of middle level pro-grams, practices, and curricula and student outcomes such as achievement.

Coordinated efforts among professional organizations, universities,and middle level schools can eventually add pieces to the research agendapuzzle. The last two decades have provided rich and useful information forschool reform in middle level schools. In the past five years, researchershave found ways to answer the big "Does It Work?" question. The nextdecade holds promise for more definitive answers of "What Works?"and"Under What Conditions?" M

ReferencesBruce, F.A., Jr., & Singh, K. (1996). Academic achievement: A model of

school learning for eighth grade students. Research in Middle Level Education

Quarterly, 19 (3), 95-111.Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development (1989). Turning points: Pre-

paring American youth for the twenty-first century. New York: Carnegie Corpora-

tion.

Felner, R. D., Jackson, A. W., Kasak, D., Mulhall, P., Brand, S., & Flowers,

N. (1997). The impact of school reform for the middle years: Longitudinal study

of a network engaged in Turning Points- based comprehensive school transforma-

tion. Phi Delta Kappan, 78 (7), 528-532, 541-550.Gong, J. (1996). Becoming just: The role of power in ensuring the demo-

cratic ends of participatory policymaking processes, Research in Middle LevelEducation Quarterly, 20 (1), 69-102.

Lipsitz, J., Jackson, A. W., & Austin, L. M. (1997). What works in middle-

grades school reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 78 (7), 517-519.Lipsitz, J., Mizell, M. H., Jackson, A. W., Austin , L M. (1997). Speaking

with one voice: A manifesto for middle-grades reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 78 (7),

533-540.


excitement. Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals.Lounsbury, J.H., & Johnston, J.H. (1985). How fares the ninth grade? Reston,


Lounsbury, J.H., & Johnston, J.H. (1988). Life in the three 6th grades. Reston,


Lounsbury, J.H., & Marani, J. (1964). The junior high school we saw: One

day in the eighth grade. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curricu-

lum Development.

355 344


Lounsbury, J.H., Marani, J., & Compton, M. (1980). The middle school inprofile: A day in the seventh grade. Columbus, OH: National Middle School Asso-

ciation.

National Commission of Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk.Washington, DC: Author.

National Middle School Association. This we believe: Developmentally re-sponsive middle level schools. (1995). Columbus, OH: Author.

Oakes, J., Serna, I., & Guiton, G. (1996). Introduction, Research in MiddleLevel Education Quarterly, 20 (1), 1-10.

Oakes, J., Vasudeva, A., & Jones, M. (1996). Becoming educative: Reform-

ing curriculum and teaching in middle grades. Research in Middle Level Educa-tion Quarterly, 20 (1), 11-40.

Quartz, K. H. (1996). Becoming better: The struggle to create a new cultureof school reform, Research in Middle Level Education Quarterly, 20 (1), 103-130.

Ryan, S. & Freidlaender, D. (1996). Becoming caring: Strengthening rela-

tionships to create caring school communities, Research in Middle Level Educa-tion Quarterly, 20 (1), 41-68.

345

356

.P.FtRARR121:RERKRRRRRHRRRRRI2RRKRRRIO:RRRKRRRR

About the Authors

Lyn ley Hicks Anderman is Assistant Professor of Educational Psychology

at the University of Missouri, Kansas City. A graduate of the University of Auckland,

New Zealand (B.A., M.A.), she taught for nine years in elementary and middleschools in New Zealand before earning her Ph.D. at the University of Michigan.

Her research interests include young adolescents' motivation and social relation-ships, and teacher education. She has published in journals such as Journal ofEarly Adolescence, Middle School Journal, and Educational Psychologist.

Joanne Arhar is Associate Professor of Curriculum and Instruction at Kent

State University in Ohio. A graduate of Case Western Reserve University (B.A.and M.A.) and the University of Cincinnati (Ed.D.), she taught high school En-glish and was an administrator at the high school and middle school levels in both

Ohio and Colorado. Joanne is currently Chair of the Research Committee of theNational Middle School Association. She received the Distinguished Dissertation

Award from ASCD and NASSP for her research on interdisciplinary teaming. Her

current research focuses on middle school student engagement and belonging and

action research for teachers, and she is the author of Leading Into the 2Ist Century

(1992).

James A. Beane is Professor in the National College of Education at Na-tional-Louis University. He has taught junior high/middle and high school andwas a Project Director for New York State Regional Education Planning Centers.

He is author of Curriculum Integration, Affect in the Curriculum: Toward Democ-

racy, Dignity and Diversity (1990) , and A Middle School Curriculum: From Rheto-

ric to Reality (1990; 1993) ; co-author of Self-Concept, Self-Esteem and the Cur-

riculum (1986 with Lipka), Curriculum Planning and Development (1986 with

3" 346


Toepfer and Allesi), The Middle School and Beyond (1992 with George, Stevenson,

and Thomason), and When the Kids Come First: Enhancing Self-Esteem at theMiddle Level (1987 with Lipka); co-editor of Democratic Schools (1995 withApple); and editor of the 1995 ASCD Yearbook, Toward a Coherent Curriculum.

In addition he has written forewords and chapters for many books and articles fora variety of professional journals.

Betty J. Bennett is a graduate of Florida State University (Ph. D.) and theUniversity of Central Florida (B. S and M. Ed.). She worked at the junior high,middle, and high school levels for 15 years as a teacher, administrator, and coordi-

nator for at-risk programs. Betty was the 1995 Florida State University Herbert J.

Reese Fellowship Award recipient. Her research interests include discipline, middle

level education, and leadership, and she has published in Middle School Journal.

Presently she is a co-author on The Three Faces of Discipline for Young Adoles-cents (In press with Wolfgang and Irvin).

Edward N. Brazee is Associate Professor of Education at the University ofMaine in Orono. A graduate of the State University of New York at Oswego (B.A.),

Colgate University (M.A.T.), and the University of Northern Colorado (Ed.D.), hetaught in middle schools and high schools in New York and Colorado. He hasauthored many articles for such publications as Middle School Journal, The Jour-nal of Early Adolescence, and Journal of Reading, as well as several chapters in

books of readings. Ed writes and edits two newsletters for parents of young ado-lescents, The In-Between Years and The Family Connection and is co-author oftwo books on middle level curriculum, Dissolving Boundaries: Toward an Inte-.grative Curriculum (1995 with Capelluti) and Second Generation Curriculum:What and How We Teach at the Middle Level (1994 with Capelluti). His middle

level interests include curriculum development, parent engagement, and schoolchange.

Judith Allen Brough is Professor and Chair of the Education Department atGettysburg College in Pennsylvania. She studied education at Shippensburg Uni-

versity of Pennsylvania (B.S. and Ed.M.) and the State University of New York at

Buffalo (Ed.D) where she specialized in curriculum planning and middle level

education. Her earlier professional experience includes ten years of teaching ingrades six through nine. Among her publications and presentations are those which

focus on middle level education, reading and the language arts, cognitive implica-

tions for learning, home-school partnerships, teaching strategies, and curriculumdevelopment and evaluation. Her most recent work includes contributions to the

3 4 358

AUTHOR BIOGRAPHIES

Scott Foresman's grades 6-9 literature series and the study of schools which have

implemented alternative curriculum delivery systems.

Donald C. Clark is Professor and Head of the Educational Administration/Leadership Program at the University of Arizona, Tucson. He earned degrees from

Pasadena College (B. A.), California State University at Los Angeles (M. A. ), and

the University of Southern California (Ed. D). He has been active in middle leveleducation for more than thirty-five years as a teacher, building level and schooldistrict administrator, and university professor. He has served as a member of two

national research teams which studied middle level schools and their leaders andhe was co-director of the National Study of Eighth Grade reported in Inside GradeEight: From Apathy to Excitement (1990 with Lounsbury). He has also been amember the National Association of Secondary Principals Council on Middle Level

Education, the research Committee of the National Middle School Association,and he currently serves as co-director of research for the Western Regional Middle

Level Consortium. He has authored and edited eight books including his mostrecent books Restructuring the Middle Level School: Implications for School Lead-

ers (1994 with Clark) and The Middle Level Principal's Role in ImplementingInterdisciplinary Curriculum (1995 with Clark), written more than 50 journal ar-

ticles, and has served as a consultant to numerous school districts and professional

organizations.

Sally N. Clark is Senior Lecturer in Secondary and Middle Level Education

at the University of Arizona in Tucson. A graduate of California State Universityat Los Angeles (B. A.), Pasadena College (M. A. ), and the University of Arizona

(Ed. D.), she teaches undergraduate and graduate classes in middle level and sec-

ondary education and has authored more than 45 articles and monographs on middle

level education, school leadership, and women in middle level administration. She

has also written and co-edited four books, including Restructuring the Middle Level

School: Implications for School Leaders (1994 with Clark) and The Middle Level

Principal' s Role in Implementing Interdisciplinary Curriculum (1995 with Clark).

She is a reviewer for Research in Middle Level Education Quarterly and is on theeditorial board of The Journal of Adolescent Research. She has served as guesteditor for Schools in the Middle, coordinated two forums for women in adminis-

tration sponsored by the University of Arizona and NASSP and was Co-Director

for three years of the Greater Tucson School-University Partnership, Middle Level

Support Group. Currently she is on the Executive Board of the Western RegionalMiddle Level Consortium and is Co-Director of its Research Committee.

359 3 4 8


Thomas S. Dickinson is Associate Professor of Education at Indiana StateUniversity in Terre Haute. A graduate of Wake Forest University (B.A.) and the

University of Virginia (M.Ed. and Ed. D.), he taught middle and secondary stu-dents in his native Virginia for eight years before moving to the college teaching

ranks. He has co-authored and edited a number of books including We Gain MoreThan We Give: Teaming in Middle Schools (1997 with Erb), America's MiddleSchools: Practices and ProgressA 25 Year Perspective (1996 with McEwin andJenkins), A Vision of Excellence: Organizing Principles for Middle Grades Teacher

Preparation (1995 with McEwin, Erb, and Scales), The Professional Preparationof Middle Level Teachers: Profiles of Successful Programs (1995 with McEwin),

Readings in Middle School Curriculum: A Continuing Conversation (1993); and

On Site: Preparing Middle School Teachers Through Field Experiences (1991 with

Butler and Davies). His primary interests in middle school education include the

professional preparation of middle school teachers and the role of standards inteacher education.

Nancy M. Doda is Professor at National-Louis University at the Washing-ton, D. C. Center where she teaches in the Interdisciplinary Studies Program in the

Graduate School of Education. A graduate of Wake Forest University, she taughtmiddle school language arts in a multiage grouped middle school for many yearswhile completing her Master's and Ph. D. at the University of Florida with a spe-cialization in Middle Level Education and Anthropology and Education. Nancyhas designed and conducted professional development opportunities for teachers,

administrators, and parents in over 48 states, Canada, Europe, and the Far East inan effort to improve middle level schooling and classroom practices. She was the

author of the column, "Teacher to Teacher" in Middle School Journal for manyyears and co-authored Team Organization: Promise-Practices and Possibilities(1989 with Erb) and has written numerous articles on various aspects of middleschool education with particular attention to assisting practitioners struggling to

visualize and implement best practices. Her current agenda includes work in urban

education, educational equity, and continued work on sustaining and refining com-prehensive middle school reform.

Jacquelynne S. Eccles received her Ph.D. in psychology at UCLA in 1974.She did her undergraduate work at University of California at Berkeley and iscurrently a Professor of Psychology and a Research Scientist at the University ofMichigan. She is also the director of the Combined Program in Education andPsychology at the University of Michigan. She was Assistant Vice-President forResearch at the University of Michigan from 1987-88 and is a member of theMacArthur Foundation Network on Successful Adolescent Development and is

360

349

AUTHOR BIOGRAPHIE.S

the chair of the new MacArthur Foundation Network on Successful Pathwaysthrough Middle Childhood. She is author or co-author of many articles and bookchapters on topics ranging from gender-role socialization, teacher expectancies,and classroom influences on student motivation to adolescent development in the

family and school context. Her current work focuses on: (1) contextual influences

on the development of self and task perceptions and activity preferences, (2) suc-cessful development during middle childhood and adolescence, and (3) the transi-

tion into early adulthood. She is the Principal Investigator on three longitudinalstudies investigating these three sets of issues.

C. Victoria Faircloth, a former elementary and middle level teacher, is As-

sistant Professor at Western Carolina University in Cullowhee, North Carolina. A

graduate of the Toccoa Falls College (B. S.), Georgia State University (M. Ed.),

and University of Georgia (Ed. D.), she has served as President of the SpecialInterest Group in Middle Level Education for the American Educational Research

Association. Victoria has co- authored Beyond Separate Subjects: Integrative Learn-

ing at the Middle Level (1995 with Siu- Runyan), written other chapters and ar-ticles on middle level education, and presented at conferences and workshops.

Laurie E. Hart is Associate Professor of Elementary Education at The Uni-

versity of Georgia in Athens. A graduate of Purdue University (B. S.), University

of Texas at Austin (M. A.), and University of Wisconsin-Madison (Ph. D.), she has

taught at the middle, high school, and university levels. Her research focuses onmiddle school education, mathematics education, and equity issues in education.

Her work has been published in many journals, including Middle School Journal,Research in Middle Level Education, Journal for Research in Mathematics Edu-cation, Elementary School Journal, Teacher Education Quarterly, Action in Teacher

Education, and Arithmetic Teacher. For the past five years she has directed a fed-

erally-funded initiative in Georgia to improve the mathematics and science com-

ponents of preparation for middle level teachers.

Rebecca A. Hines is currently an Assistant Professor in the Department ofSecondary Education at Southeast Missouri State University, Cape Girardeau. Her

dissertation received the 1995 Distinguished Dissertation Award from the National

Association of Secondary School Principals' Council on Middle Level Education.

She has worked in inclusive settings as a regular educator, a special educator, and

as a co-teacher in a fully inclusive middle school. She continues to examine inclu-sive settings and publishes and presents nationally on this topic.

361

350


David Hough, Editor, Research in Middle Level Education Quarterly, theNational Middle School Association's official publication for the dissemination of

research findings, is also Associate Dean, College of Education, Southwest Mis-souri State University, and Director, Southwest Professional Development Center.

David has authored several research reports regarding middle level program com-

ponents and grade-span configuration. His most recent research published in the

Journal of Research in Rural Education addresses student achievement. He co-authored a college text, Middle Level Teaching: Methods and Resources (1995with Kellough and Kellough), and drafted the new NMSA document, A MiddleSchool Research Agenda for the 21st Century (1997). After earning a Ph.D. ineducational policy analysis from the University of California, Riverside, in 1991,David joined the faculty at Southwest Missouri State University, Springfield.

Judith L. Irvin is Program Coordinator for the Department of EducationalLeadership at Florida State University in Tallahassee. She served as Editor of Re-search in Middle Level Education for the National Middle School Association(1989-1994) and Chair of the Research Committee (1990-1996). A former socialstudies teacher, she obtained a Ph. D. in reading/language arts. She authored nu-

merous books including Reading and the Middle School Student: Strategies toEnhance Literacy (Second Edition, 1997) and edited Transforming Middle Level

Education: Prospectives and Possibilities (1992). She also co-authored Enhanc-ing Social Studies Through Literacy Strategies (1995 with Lunstrum, Lynch-Brown,

and Shepard), Starting Early with Study Skills: Learning and Remembering in theElementary Grades (1995 with Rose), Leadership in Restructuring Middle Level

Schools: Volume II : A National Study of Middle Level Leaders and their Schools

(1994 with Valentine, Clark, and Keefe), and Leadership in Middle Level Educa-tion: Volume I - A National Survey of Middle Level Leaders and Their Schools(1993 with Valentine, Clark, Keefe, and Melton). She writes the What Research

Says to the Middle Level Practitioner Department for Middle School Journal andis current Chair of the Task Force on Literacy for Young Adolescents, a collabora-

tive effort between NMSA and International Reading Association.

J. Howard Johnston is Professor of Secondary Education at the Universityof South Florida. Howard has been a junior high and high school teacher and isnow a well-established author, lecturer, and researcher. He has written over 100works on middle level education, among the most notable is How Fares the Ninth

Grade? (1985 with Lounsbury) and Life in the Three Sixth Grades (1988 withLounsbury), The New American Family (1990), What Research Says to the Middle

Level Practitioner (1986 with Markle), and Effective Schooling for Economically

Disadvantaged Students: School-Based Strategies for Diverse Student Populations

362

351

AUTHOR BIOGRAPHIES

(1992). Howard is the recipient of the of the National Middle School Association's

Presidential Award, the National Association of Secondary School Principals' Dis-

tinguished Service Award, and the New England League of Middle Schools' Dis-

tinguished Achievement Award. In recent years, he has been interested in the abil-

ity of middle schools to accommodate student diversity and assure success for all

youth.

Richard P. Lipka is Professor of Education at Pittsburg State University inKansas. A graduate of the State University of New York College at Buffalo (B.S.,

M.S.) and the University of Illinois (Ph.D.), he taught sixth grade as a member ofa four person team in Amherst, New York. His research interest is affective devel-

opment with an emphasis upon self-concept and self-esteem. To that end, he served

as co-editor of Self-Perspective Across the Life-Span (1992 with Brinthaupt) and

co-author on When the Kids Come First: Enhancing Self-Esteem (1987 with Beane)

and Self-Concept and Self-Esteem and the Curriculum (1986 with Beane).

Douglas J. Mac Iver is the Associate Director and a Research Scientist atthe Center for Social Organization of Schools, Johns Hopkins University in Balti-

more, MD. A graduate of Occidental College (B.A.) and University of Michigan(Ph.D.), he has been engaged in middle level research for 18 years. His researchfocuses on the impact of middle school reform on students' learning opportunities,

mothation, and achievement. He has authored articles for the Annual Review ofPsychology, Educational Psychology, Child Development, Developmental Psychol-

ogy, American Educator, and many other journals. He has also co-authored Edu-

cation in the Middle Grades: National Practices and Trends (1990 with Epstein).

Janet E. McDaniel is Associate Professor at California State University San

Marcos, where she serves as Coordinator of Middle Level Teacher Education. Agraduate of Whitman College (B. A.), she taught middle school social studies for

twelve years before earning her M.Ed. and Ph. D. at the University of Washington.

Her research interests are middle school teaching and teacher education. With her

CSUSM colleagues, she has published regularly in journals such as Middle School

Journal, Research in Middle Level Education, and Teacher Education Quarterly.Her recent co-authored book is Working with Middle School Students (1996 with

Stowell, Rios, and Christopher).

C. Kenneth McEwin is Professor of Curriculum and Instruction at Appala-

chian State University, Boone, North Carolina. A graduate of East Texas StateUniversity (B. S. & M. Ed.) and North Texas State University (Ed. D.), he taughtsixth grade and was an elementary school principal in Texas. A past-president of

363

3 5 2,


the National Middle School Association (1983) and recipient of the LounsburyAward (1989) from that association, he has co-authored America's Middle Schools:

Programs and Progress - A 25 Year Perspective (1996 with Dickinson and Jenkins),

A Vision of Excellence: Organizing Principles for Middle Grades Teacher Prepa-ration (1995 with Dickinson, Erb, and Scales), and Growing Pains: The Making of

America's Middle School Teachers (1994 with Scales). Ken has been a leader inthe development of criteria for assessing middle level teacher preparation pro-grams in conjunction with the National Council for the Accreditation of TeacherEducation. He also has a particular interest in interscholastic sports for young ado-lescents.

H. James McLaughlin is Assistant Professor, Department of ElementaryEducation (Middle School Program) at The University of Georgia in Athens. Hetaught school for eight years, primarily on a 7th-grade team in middle school. Jim

graduated from the University of Kansas and the University of Wisconsin-Madi-son before receiving a Ph.D. from the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill.

His recent research interests center on studying multi-year groupings in middleschools and he also writes about teacher reflection, classroom management, and

Vygotskian theory. Most of his work is done with teachers and principals in schools,

developing action research projects on a team and school level. Jim has publishedin journals such as International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Educa4ion, Middle

School Journal, and the Journal of Teacher Education.

Carol Midgley is an Associate Research Scientist with the Combined Pro-gram in Education and Psychology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michi-gan. A graduate of the University of Michigan (Ph.D.), her research has focused on

the relation between the learning environment and adolescent development. She

recently co-authored Transforming School Cultures (1996, with Maehr) and haspublished in journals such as Middle School Journal, Journal of Early Adoles-cence, Journal of Educational Psychology and Child Development. She is on theeditorial board of the American Educational Research Journal and the Journal ofEarly Adolescence.

Rebecca A. Mills is Associate Professor of Instructional and Curricular Studies

at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. A graduate of the University of Central

Arkansas (B.S.E., M.S.E.) and the University of Arkansas (Ed.D.), she taught atthe junior high, high school, and university levels. Her research on middle levelteaching and interdisciplinary teaming has been published in Research in Middle

Level Quarterly and Middle School Journal. She has written articles for Schools in

the Middle, Action in Teacher Education, and Clearinghouse.

353 364

AUTHOR BIOGRAPHIES

Nancy B. Mize Ile has been a member of the faculty of the Department ofElementary Education at the University of Georgia. A graduate of Meredith Col-

lege (B. A.), Clemson University (M. Ed.), and the University of Georgia (Ed. D.),

she taught middle grades in North Carolina and in South Carolina. Her researchfocuses on young adolescents and middle school education and she is particularlyinterested in the transition from middle school to high school and in student lit-eracy learning and motivation. She has presented at the annual meetings of theNational Middle School Association and the American Educational Research As-sociation; her publications have appeared in Research in Middle Level Education

Quarterly and the Middle School Journal and she recently guest-edited a themedissue of the Middle School Journal, Creating Literate Environments (1997, withIrvin and Gay).

EmmettR. Mullins is Technology Coordinator at Harbins Elementary School

in Dacula, Georgia. He earned his B.S.Ed. and M.Ed. in Middle Level Educationat the University of Georgia and recently completed his doctoral work there, aswell. He has been a teacher of young adolescents for thirteen years and his doc-toral research examined effects of school transition on this age gimp. Addition-ally, he has been author or co-author for numerous social studies curriculum mate-

rials for the Georgia Department of Education.

Stephen B. Plank is Associate Research Scientist at the Center for SocialOrganization of Schools and Adjunct Assistant Professor of Sociology, both atJohns Hopkins University. A graduate of Northwestern University (B.A.) and the

University of Chicago (M.A., and Ph.D.), his published research focuses on middle

school reform, barriers and access to postsecondary schooling, and peer relations

in classrooms. He also has co-authored a book on alternative organizational de-signs and incentive systems in schools (1997 with Coleman, Schneider, and oth-

ers).

Elizabeth Platt is Associate Professor of Education, Multilingual/Multicultural Education, Department of Curriculum and Instruction, Florida State

University. She obtained her doctorate in educational psychology from the Uni-versity of Illinois in 1989 and subsequently was project director of a national study

on limited English proficient students in vocational education. Elizabeth's mainmission is to improve instruction of children in the public schools. Though grounded

in theoretical issues in psycholinguistic aspects of second language acquisition,she has more recently begun participant observation work in classrooms and hasbecome interested in sociocultural approaches to language learning. In recent con-

tributions to the Modern Language Journal she has challenged the prevailing model

365 354


of second language acquisition. She has just completed a publication for the Cen-

ter for Applied Linguistics entitled The Vocational Classroom: A Great Place toLearn English.

Richard R. Powell is Associate Professor of Curriculum and Instruction atTexas Tech University in Lubbock. A graduate of West Texas State University (B.

S., M. S.) and Indiana University (Ph. D.), he taught at the middle school, highschool, junior college, and university levels. Additionally, he has taught technical

laboratory training in the Middle East for two years. He has co- authored severalworks, including Field Experience: Strategies for Exploring Diversity in Schools

(1996, with Zehm and Garcia) and Classrooms Under the Influence: AddictedFamilies, Addicted Students (1994, with Zehm and Kottler). He has also co-authored

a monograph titled Classrooms Under the Influence: Helping Early AdolescentChildren of Alcoholics. His research on teacher education has been published widely,

including such journals as Teaching and Teacher Education, Qualitative Studies in

Education, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, and Curriculum Inquiry. His

primary interest in middle school education is in alternative curriculum contextsand curriculum reform.

Joan Schine, an independent consultant specializing in service learning, early

adolescence, and school reform, was the founding director of the National Center

for Service Learning in Early Adolescence at the Center for Advanced Study inEducation, CUNY Graduate Center. Prior to establishing the Center, she directed

the Early Adolescent Helper Program, and has been Senior Program Associate at

the National Commission on Resources for Youth. She is editor of Service Learn-

ing, the 1997 Yearbook of the National Society for Education. She was a middleschool visitor for the U.S. Department of Education School Recognition Program.

At present, she serves on several advisory committees, among them Chapin Hall's

Program on Caring, sponsored by the Lilly Endownment, the advisory board forthe University of Pennsylvania's Western Philadelphia Improvement Corps Repli-

cation Project, and the Bridgeport, (CT) Child Advocacy Coalition. A former mem-

ber and chairperson of the Westport, CT Board of Education, Joan has spoken and

written extensively on service learning in the middle school and related topics.

Hilda Rossetti is Associate Professor in the Department of Special Educa-tion, University of San Francisco, where she coordinates the Graduate TrainingProgram in Gifted Education, directs the College of Education Honors Program,and teaches a variety of undergraduate and graduate level courses. She also estab-

lished the university's first Professional Development School where she spent five

years at a middle school supervising over 100 interns and collaborating with fac-

366

AUTHOR BIOGRAPHIES

ulty on curriculum and school reform initiatives. Prior to her appointments at the

university, she worked as a middle school teacher specialized in gifted educationand curriculum development. She has co-edited two texts in special education and

authored or co-authored more than a dozen articles or chapters. She has presented

at over 100 local, state, national, and international conferences and is a board mem-

ber of the National Association for Gifted Children. Currently her research fo-cuses on application of multiple intelligence theory, gifted education, and univer-

sity/school partnerships.

Laura P. Stowell is Associate Professor of Language and Literacy, Califor-nia State University, San Marcos. She taught middle school language arts and read-

ing for eleven years while also earning her M.A. and Ph. D. at Ohio State Univer-

sity. Her research interests are middle school literacy, literacy and technology, and

assessment. With her CSUSM colleagues, she has published regularly in journals

such as Middle School Journal, Research in Middle Level Education, and Teacher

Education Quarterly. Her recent co-authored book is Working with Middle School

Students (1996, with Rios, McDaniel, and Christopher).

John H. Swaim is a Professor at Otterbein College in Westerville, Ohio.Previous to coming to Otterbein he taught 25 years at the University of NorthernColorado where he was awarded emeritus status in 1994. While at UNC he was a

middle school teacher and principal of the Laboratory School and later developed

and directed the middle school teacher education program. He received his B.S.E.

and M.S.E. at Emporia State University and his Ed.D. from the University of North-

ern Colorado. He is a past president of the National Middle School Association(1980) and a recipient of the John H. Lounsbury Award (1995). He has co-authored

Meeting the Standards: Improving Middle Level Teacher Education (1996, withStefanich) and Middle Level Teachers: Portraits of Excellence (1995, with Arth,Lounsbury, and McEwin). An additional interest of John's is in the area of youngadolescent sports. He has frequently written and presented on this topic on several

occasions.

Conrad F. Toepfer, Jr. is Professor of Education, Department of Learningand Instruction, State University of New York at Buffalo where he teaches andadvises graduate students in curriculum planning and development. Connie hasworked with middle level schools throughout the North America and abroad. Ajunior high school teacher and administrator before moving to university work in

1965, he is a Past President of the National Middle School Association and chaired

the National Association of Secondary School Principals' Middle Level EducationCouncil from 1981 through 1993. Over the past forty-two years, he has contrib-

367

356'

WHAT CURREIVT RESEARCH SAYS

uted to thirty-five books and monographs and authored over one-hundred-fiftyarticles in general curriculum and middle level educational journals.

Susan B. Trimble is a faculty member in the Department of Middle Grades

and Secondary Education at Georgia Southern University in Statesboro. Susan has

been involved with middle level education for the past fifteen years as a classroom

teacher, researcher, and teacher-educator. Her professional work and publicationstarget middle level teacher preparation and development, interdisciplinary teams,

and middle level reform, particularly the role of principals. Her doctorate is fromFlorida State University.

Jerry W. Valentine is Professor of Educational Leadership, University ofMissouri at Columbia. A graduate of Louisiana Tech University (B.A.), University

of Southwestern Louisiana (M.Ed.) and the University of Nebraska-Lincoln (Ph.D.),

he taught at the elementary, middle, and high school levels and has been a princi-

pal. During his tenure as a professor he chaired two national studies (1980-83 and1990-93) of middle level education for the National Association of SecondarySchool Principals. He has served on numerous national committees for theprincipalship and middle level education, authored or co-authored five books and

several book chapters, published dozens of articles in professional periodicals and

is currently working with three co-authors on The Middle Level Principal: Lead-

ership for a Child-Centered School. He directs the Missouri Center for SchoolImprovement and is in the process of combining that role with his interest in middle

level leadership to establish a National Center for the Study of Middle Level Lead-ership.

Jill L. VanNess is a doctoral candidate at Florida State University. A gradu-

ate of Westmont College (B.A.), she taught middle school English as a secondlanguage in Costa Rica for one year and in West Sacramento, California, for fouryears. She has a California language development specialist credential and aMaster's degree in Educational Leadership, from Florida State University. Herresearch interests include the role of inclusion and facilitation of linguistic minor-ity students in middle level schools.

Gordon F. Vars is Professor Emeritus at Kent State University, Kent, Ohio.A graduate of Antioch College (A. B.), Ohio State University (M. A. ) and George

Peabody College for Teachers (Ed. D.), he has taught middle level young peoplealmost continuously since 1949. He also has taught both graduate and undergradu-

ate college students at the University of Maryland, Kent State University, and State

University of Wisconsin at Platteville. His extensive publications and research

368

3

AUTHOR BIOGRAPHIES

deal with middle level curriculum, integrative/interdisciplinary/core programs, and

evaluation of student progress. His dedication to the education of young adoles-cents has been recognized by the Ohio Middle School Association, the NationalMiddle School Association, and the National Association for Core Curriculum. He

continues to share his experience with middle level educators through workshops,

inservice sessions, and presentations at local, state, and national conferences.

Todd W hitaker is Associate Professor of Educational Leadership, Adminis-

tration, and Foundations at Indiana State University, Terre Haute. A graduate ofthe University of Missouri, he was a middle level principal for eight years. Inaddition, he was middle school coordinator responsible for the development oftwo new middle schools in Jefferson City, Missouri. His research interests include

teacher leadership, the principal, change, and middle level programs and prac-tices. He has presented and published in the areas of motivating reluctant teachers,

teacher leadership, effective change, technology in middle schools, and the middle

level principalship.

Allan Wigfield is Associate Professor of Human Development at the Uni-versity of Maryland at College Park. He received his Ph.D. in educational psy-chology at the University of Illinois. He has done extensive research on how the

transition from elementary to middle school influences children's motivation andself-esteem. He has published in journals such as Developmental Psychology,American Psychologist, and Elementary School Journal. He also co-edited (1994

and 1995, with Jacquelynne S. Eccles) two special issues of the Journal of Early

Adolescence devoted to middle grades schooling and young adolescent develop-ment. At the University of Maryland, he teaches a course on adolescent develop-

ment for students in the secondary education program.

358369

NATIONAL MIDDLE SCHOOL ASSOCIATION

National Middle School Association was established in 1973 to serveas a voice for professionals and others interested in the educationof young adolescents. The Association has grown rapidly and now

enrolls members in all fifty states, the Canadian provinces, and forty-twoother nations. In addition, fifty-six state, regional, and provincial middleschool associations are official affiliates of NMSA.

NMSA is the only association dedicated exclusively to the education,development, and growth of young adolescents. Membership is open toall. While middle level teachers and administrators make up the bulk of themembership, central office personnel, college and university faculty, statedepartment officials, other professionals, parents, and lay citizens are mem-bers and active in supporting our single mission improving the educa-tional experiences of 10-15 year olds. This open and diverse membershipis a particular strength of NMSA.

The Association provides a variety of services, conferences, and ma-terials in fulfilling its mission. In addition to Middle School Journal, themovement's premier professional journal, the Association publishes Re-search in Middle Level Education Quarterly, a wealth of books and mono-graphs, videos, an association newsletter, a magazine, and occasional pa-pers. The Association's highly acclaimed annual conference, which hasdrawn over 10,000 registrants in recent years, is held in the fall.

For information about NMSA and its many services contact the Head-quarters at 2600 Corporate Exchange Drive, Suite 370, Columbus, Ohio43231, TELEPHONE 800-528-NMSA, FAX 614-895-4750.

3.7;9

370

"Never before has there been assembled and presented in clear,understandable terms so much research data on so many facets of middle

level education." from the Foreword

This authoritative volume comes at a critical, yet propitious time and willbe an invaluable resource as middle level educators continue to fashion

educational programs designed to achieve maximum academic anddevelopmental growth.

NMSANational Middle School Association2600 Corporate Exchange DriveColumbus, Ohio 43231

ISBN 1-56090-120-

9 7 1560 901204

U.S. Department of EducationOffice of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI)

National Library of Education (NLE)Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC)

NOTICE

REPRODUCTION BASIS

IC

This document is covered by a signed "Reproduction Release(Blanket) form (on file within the ERIC system), encompassing allor classes of documents from its source organization and, therefore,does not require a "Specific Document" Release form.

This document is Federally-funded, or carries its own permission toreproduce, or is otherwise in the public domain and, therefore, maybe reproduced by ERIC without a signed Reproduction Release form(either "Specific Document" or "Blanket").

EFF-089 (9/97)

S 0 3 I

361p. · 2013. 8. 2. · link" (brough); (23) "organizational trends and practices in...

Documents